857 of 2010 before the High Court praying for issuance of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the owners of the Pathological Lab from running the Diagnostic Centre in the concerned building, which was also dismissed by the High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 16. Reverting back to the case at hand, the learned counsel for the State of Himachal Pradesh has not been able to satisfy us as to how such a prohibition as is imposed by the impugned amendment in the Rules helps in achieving the object of the Act.
Such presumption can, however, be rebutted by a satisfactory explanation for the non-production of the written reasons. We are fortified in taking such view by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Bhim Singhji v. 2010 passed by learned single Judge, the appellant filed LPA No. We are also in agreement with the submission of Shri Anil Divan that by placing complete prohibition on transfer of land subservient to tea estates no purpose sought to be achieved by the Act is advanced and so also such prohibition cannot be sustained.
Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses, soliciting their presence. We fail to understand how a restriction on transfer of such land is going to carry out any purpose of the Act. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere chance witnesses. If murder is committed on a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Aggrieved by the Order dated 5. Such land is not to be taken in account either for calculating area of surplus land or for calculating the area of land which a person may retain as falling within the ceiling limit.
It is a most unsuitable expression in a country whose people are less formal and more casual. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 166 whereby sub- section (1) of Section 27 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was struck down as invalid insofar as it imposed a restriction on transfer of any urban of urbanisable land with a building or a portion only of such building which was within the ceiling area. The constitutional requirement in clause (b) is that the reason for dispensing with the inquiry should be recorded in writing.
If murder is committed in a brothel, prostitutes and paramours are natural witnesses. The expression chance witnesses is borrowed from countries where every mans home is considered his castle and every one must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another mans castle. The obligation to record the reason in writing is provided in clause (b) so that the superiors of the disciplinary authority may be able to judge whether such authority had exercised its power under clause (b) properly or not with a view to judge the performance and capacity of that officer for the purposes of promotion etc.
From the provisions of the Act we cannot spell out any legislative intent delegating expressly, or by necessary implication, the power to enact any prohibition on transfer of land. Land forming part of a tea estate including land subservient to a tea plantation have been placed beyond the ken of the Act. The provision impugned therein imposed a restriction on transactions by way of sale, mortgage, gift or lease of vacant land or buildings for a period exceeding ten years, or otherwise for a period of ten years from the date of the commencement of the Act even though such vacant land, with or without a building thereon, fell within the ceiling limits.
As clause (3) of Article 311 makes the decision of the disciplinary authority on this point final, the question cannot be agitated in a departmental appeal, revision or review. If the reasons are not communicated to the government servant and the matter comes to the court, the court can direct the reasons to be produced, and furnished to the government servant and if still not produced, a presumption should be drawn that the reasons were not recorded in writing and the impugned order would then stand invalidated.
Though the present controversy is different, we have dealt with the said facet as we intend to emphasize how the Courts have dealt with and addressed to such a matter so that a borrower with vengeance could ultimately exhibit his high-handedness. There is no obligation to communicate the reason to the government servant. It would, however, be better for the disciplinary authority to communicate to the government servant its reason for dispensing with the inquiry because such communication would eliminate the possibility of an allegation being made that the reasons have been subsequently fabricated.
If murder is committed Best Solicitors in Chandigarh High Court a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. It would also enable the government servant to approach the High Court under Article 226 or, in a fit case, this Court under Article 32. The Constitution Bench held (by majority) that such property will be transferable without the constraints mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 27 of the said Act. It is difficult to appreciate how a citizen could be compelled to own property against his will though he wanted to alienate it and the land being within the ceiling limits was outside the purview of Section 3 of the Act and that being so the person owning the land was not governed by any of the provisions of the Act.
State of Haryana, has observed that:- We do not understand the expression chance witnesses. It logically followed, as a necessary corollary, that the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property guaranteed to citizen under Article 19(1)(f) carried with it the right not Permission to go Abroad Law Firm in Chandigarh hold any property. Their Lordships opined that the light to carry on a business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution carried with it the right not to carry on business. Hence, this appeal by special leave is filed by the appellant.
It was vehemently contended that if reasons are not recorded in the final order, they must be communicated to the concerned government servant to enable him to challenge the validity of the reasons in a departmental appeal or before a court of Best law firm in Chandigarh and that failure to communicate the reasons would invalidate the order. This contention too cannot be accepted.