AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This judgment will dispose of Supreme Court Applications 202, 204, 205 and 206 of 1972.
The petitioners shad filed civil writ petitions in this court challenging the notification No. PSAMB/5/71 dated July 9, 1971, issued by the Chairman, Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, Chandigarh. Under this notification potatoes, shakarkandi, Onions, Arbi garlic and ginger etc., had been categorised as non perishable vegetables and the rate of commission chargeable on these articles was reduced from 4 per cent to 2 per cent and the rate of unloading charges was reduced from 6 paise to 5 paise per unit or bag. These petitions were dismissed by us vide our judgment dated March 30, 1972. The main judgment was rendered in C. W. No. 324 of 1972 against which Supreme Court Application No. 204 of 1972 has been filed.
The main points raised in the writ petitions have already been settled by authoritative pronouncements of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India. For instance, the question relating to the vires of the marketing legislation has been settled in M.C.V.S. Arunachala Nadar etc. Vs. The State of Madras and Others, . The powers of the executive authority to fix the rate of tax within reasonable limits has been settled in Devi Das Gopal Krishnan and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, . In Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi and Another, , it has been held that a statute can authorise a local body to impose taxes. Similarly, the question of natural justice has been settled by the Supreme court in A.K. Kraipak and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , and Union of India (UOI) Vs. Col. J.N. Sinha and Another, . The question relating to the applicability of the doctrine of territorial nexus has been settled in The State of Bihar and Others Vs. Charusila Dasi, and Anant Prasad Lakshminivas Generiwal Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, . In short, most of the points raised in these petitions stand concluded in view of the pronouncements made by the highest Court of the land. Consequently no, substantial question of law remains to be settled in this case. In State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others Vs. Thakur Ganga Singh for self and on behalf of other shareholders of Jammu and Kashmir Mechanics and Transport Workers Co-operative Society Limited and Another, , K. Subba Rao J., speaking for the Court; observed as follows:--
"The interpretation of Article 14 in the context of classification has been finally settled by the highest Court of this land and under Article 141 of the Constitution that interpretation is binding on all the Courts within the territory of India. What remained to be done by the High Court was only to apply that interpretation to the facts before it. A substantial question of law, therefore, cannot arise where that law has been finally and authoritatively decided by this Court."
In view of the aforementioned observations, it cannot be held that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court of India.
The petitioners have also urged that the judgment rendered by us involves directly or indirectly a claim which is not less than Rs. 20,000/-. but the manner in which this figure has been arrived at has not been mentioned in the petition. Consequently, the claim made is incapable of being properly determined. The rules framed by this Court lay down that in a petition under Article 133(1) of the Constitution made to this Court the petitioner should state the mode of calculation of the valuation. Relevant portion of rule 1(a) framed under Article 7 of the High Court (Punjab) Order 1947, read with clause 27 of the Letters Patent and all other powers enabling the High Court in this behalf appearing in Chapter 8A High Court Rules and orders Volume V reads, as under:--
"1. (a): A petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court shall comply with the requirements of Rule 3(1). Order XLV of CPC and contain the following particulars:--
.......... ........... .............. ................ ............. .............
.......... ........... .............. ................ ............. ............. (v) the value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of the first instance:
(vi) the value of the subject-matter in dispute in appeal; and
........... ........... ............ .............. ............. ............. Explanation:--For purposes of clauses (v) and (vi) it shall be necessary to state how the value of the subject matter has been arrived at."
Since the petitioners have not complied with the aforementioned provisions and since no prayer has been made for the amendment of the petition at any stage, the case cannot be certified to be fit for appeal to the Supreme Court on the question of valuation either. Consequently all these applications stand dismissed.
S.S. Sandhawalia, J.
I agree.
Petitions dismissed.