The Court will, therefore, interfere with the legislative process only when a statute is clearly violative of the rights conferred on the citizen under Part-III of the Constitution. The Department preferred an appeal against the said order sometime in the year 2000 which appeal was decided in their favour by this court only on 12. The present case stands on a slightly different footing. Such narrowly and closely defined contours of offences made out under the Penal Code are conspicuous by their absence in Section 66A which in stark contrast uses completely open ended, undefined and vague language.
The abortive appeal had been filed against orders passed in March- April, 1992. Before its amendment in 2001, it provided a maximum period of 180 days within which an appeal could be filed. While adjudicating upon the propositions canvassed before it, the High Court in paragraph 35 of the impugned judgment and order, observed as under:- “35. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General defended the constitutionality of Section 66A.
Mere possibility of abuse of a provision cannot be a ground to declare a provision invalid. who have not opted for the post of Data Entry Operators and were stick on to the much higher responsible position, were put in a most disadvantageous position. But, lawyer in Chandigarh maintenance Section 125 & 24 the cases on hand, all the parties emerge from the same cadre of LDC and only by virtue of option, some parties have opted to the post of Data Entry Operators and by virtue of the impugned Rules they were afforded fortuitous advantage that too without any stringent conditions like passing the Departmental Tests like the case of a LDC who is required to pass the same to seek promotion to the next category of UDC, while the rest of the LDCs.
The Constitution does not impose impossible standards of determining validity. There is a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of an enactment. Clause (3) of Article 311 expressly provides that “If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, the question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such enquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final”.
This Committee submitted its report to Government in April 1940. Further, the Court would so construe a statute to make it workable and in doing so can read into it or read down the provisions that are impugned. Time began to run on 3. The inter se seniority has been fixed by the impugned Rules only based on the pay and giving a go-bye to all the norms prescribed by the Apex Court. Equally, under Section 510, the annoyance that is caused to a person must only be by another person who is in a state of intoxication and who annoys such person only in a public place or Proclaimed Offender Advocate in Chandigarh a place for which it is a trespass for him to enter.
We have noticed hereinbefore that the formal enquiry was dispensed with only on the ground that the appellant could win over aggrieved people as well as witnesses from giving evidence by threatening and other means. On the principles contained in Section 14 of the Limitation Act the time taken in prosecuting an abortive proceeding would have to be excluded as the appellant was prosecuting bona fide with due diligence the appeal before CEGAT which was allowed in its favour by CEGAT on 23.
The present appeal was filed under Section 128, which Section continues on the statute book till date. 2003 by which CEGATs order was set aside on the ground that CEGAT had no jurisdiction to entertain such appeal. He argued that the legislature is judicial separation advocate in Chandigarh the best position to understand and appreciate the needs of the people. Since the impugned legislation suffers from the vice of discrimination and unreasonableness, we hold that the impugned Rules are arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, since they give unreasonable advantage and a steep forward for an otherwise low category persons like Data Entry Operators as against the LDCs/UDCs/Tax Assistants, who perform highly responsible and complex duties unlike mere entering a data by the Data Entry Operators.
We have no quarrel with the proposition of law enunciated by the Apex Court. 1992 under Section 128 pre amendment when the appellant received the order of the Superintendent of Customs intimating it about an order passed by the Collector of Customs on 25. No action was, however, taken on this recommendation by the State Government. If one looks at Section 294, the annoyance that is spoken of is clearly defined – that is, it has to be caused by obscene utterances or acts.
It had suggested that housing on an adequate scale should be made a statutory obligation of the employer but the extent to which the industry could be required to fulfil such an obligation should be determined by the State Government after careful investigation into its financial condition. Under Section 128 as it then stood a person aggrieved by a decision or order passed by a Superintendent of Customs could appeal to the Collector (Appeals) within three months from the date of communication to him of such decision or order.