1991 JTR(SC) 688
1992 Supp3 SCC 215 ; 1992 SCC(L&S) 482 ; 1991 KHC 2635 ; 1992 1 KLT(Online) 938
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M.Ahmadi : B.P.Jeevan Reddy : Kuldip Singh : M.H.Kania : M.N.Venkatachaliah : P.B.Sawant : R.M.Sahai : S.R.Pandian : T.K.Thommen
Indra Sawhney
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 930 of 1990
Date of Decision : 12/4/91
Advocates Appeared: Agnihotri S.K. : Ahmed Altaf : Anam E.M.S. : Baig M.H. : Bajaj K.C. : Bhasme A.S. : Bhasnic A.S. : Bhatt S.N. : Bisht N.S. : Chari T.V.S.N. : Chaudhary Kusum : Chaudhary Pravir : Chauhan B.S. : Dadachanji J.B. : Das J.R. : Dwivedi Ranjan : Firoz M.A. : Garg D.K. : Garg M.K. : George M.T. : Goodwill Indeevar : Goswami Lira : Gupta Aruneshwar : Gupta B.S. : Gupta Bina : Gupta K.K. : Gupta Rakesh Kumar : Havanur L.G. : Hingorani K. : Jain Randhir : Jain S.K. : Jaiswal Kamini : Jethmalani Rani : Kachwala S. : Kapur P.C. : Karanjawala Manik : Kashyap K.M. : Kaushik Lalita : Khanna V.D. : Kirpal Alpana : Krishnamurthy V. : Krishnan P.Murli : Kunhikannan T.T. : Maheshwari R.K. : Makwana Indra : Manohar P.K. : Markandeya Chitra : Mathur Aruna : Mehta R.K. : Menon Sudarsh : Michael M.K. : Mohan R. : Mudgal Mukul : Nair K.M.K. : Nambiar K.R. : Namboordiri M.Kd : Panda A.K. : Pandey L.K. : Pappu Shyamala : Parameswaran P. : Parmeshwaran P. : Paul M.J. : Pillai K.R.R. : Poti P.S. : Prabhakar G. : Prasad Jagdish : Prasad Manoj : Rao A.Subba : Rao C.S.S. : Rao P.P. : Roy S.C. : Sahu C.L. : Sasiprabhu R. : Sathe Vasant : Sawhney Indra : Setia S.R. : Sharma B.D. : Sharma Jitendra : Sharma Naresh K. : Singh Attar : Singh B.B. : Singh Mahabir : Singh P.P. : Sinha D. : Subhashini A. : Subramanium Gopal : Sudhakaran N. : Sukumaran S. : Swamy K. : Swamy Subramanian : Trehan A.L. : Upadhyay R.D. : Upadhyay S.B. : Uppal Harish : Vaidyanathan T.S. : Vasudev K. : Veerappa M. : Venugopal K.K. : Verma Ravi Kumar : Vohra D.B. : Wahi H.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.16(4), Art.340
Constitution Of India,1950 - Solicitor General - Economic criteria - Additional Solicitor General states that the government definitely expects to be able to fix the economic criteria filing amendment applications is condoned - All amendment applications filed challenging Notification are allowed - Counter-affidavit by way of reply to amendment in the petitions to be filed within three weeks and rejoinder any within one week thereafter –Held, Counsel are directed to file a brief summary of their propositions and authorities relied on by them merely citations not exceeding five pages by Apportionment of time for hearing of will be made thereafter - Matters to be listed on Regular Board question of stay granted by us earlier is concerned, we see no reason to pass any order at this stage as the petitions are posted for hearing on in view of economic criterion not being yet determined and other relevant circumstances no question of immediate implementation of the notification arises – Order accordingly
Constitution Of India,1950 - Solicitor General - Economic criteria - Additional Solicitor General states that the government definitely expects to be able to fix the economic criteria filing amendment applications is condoned - All amendment applications filed challenging Notification are allowed - Counter-affidavit by way of reply to amendment in the petitions to be filed within three weeks and rejoinder any within one week thereafter –Held, Counsel are directed to file a brief summary of their propositions and authorities relied on by them merely citations not exceeding five pages by Apportionment of time for hearing of will be made thereafter - Matters to be listed on Regular Board question of stay granted by us earlier is concerned, we see no reason to pass any order at this stage as the petitions are posted for hearing on in view of economic criterion not being yet determined and other relevant circumstances no question of immediate implementation of the notification arises – Order accordingly
A.K.PANDEY, A.L.TREHAN, A.S.BHASME, A.SUBBA RAO, A.Subhashini, ALPANA KIRPAL, Altaf Ahmed, ARUNA MATHUR, ARUNESHVAR GUPTA, ATTAR SINGH, B.B.Singh, B.D.SHARMA, B.S.Chauhan, B.S.Gupta, BINA GUPTA, C.L.SAHU, C.S.S.RAO, CHITRA MARKANDEYA, D.B.VOHRA, D.K.GARG, D.SINHA, E.M.S.ANAM, G.Prabhakar, GOPAL SUBRAMANIUM, H.VAHI, HARISH UPPAL, INDIVAR GUDWILL, INDRA MAKWANA, Indra Sawhney, J.B.DADACHAN, J.R.DAS, JAGDISH PRASAD, JITENDRA SHARMA, K.C.BAJAJ, K.HINGORANI, K.K.GUPTA, K.K.VENUGOPAL, K.M.KASHYAP, K.M.NAYAR, K.R.NAMBIAR, K.R.R.PILLAI, K.SWAMY, K.VASUDEVA PILLAI, KAMINI JAISWAL, Kusum Chaudhary, L.G.HAVANUR, L.K.PANDEY, LALITA KAUSHIK, LIRA GOSVAMI, M.A.Firoz, M.H.BAIG, M.J.Paul, M.K.Garg, M.K.MICHEL, M.KD.NAMBURDIRI, M.T.George, M.VIRAPPA, Mahabir Singh, MANIK KARANJAVALA, MANOJ PRASAD, Mukul Mudgal, N.S.BISHT, N.SUDHAKARAN, NARESH K.SHARMA, P.C.KAPUR, P.K.MANOHARAN, P.MURLI KRISHNAN, P.P.Rao, P.P.SINGH, P.PARMESHVARAN, P.S.POTI, Pravir Chaudhary, R.D.UPADHYAY, R.K.MAHESHWARI, R.K.MEHTA, R.MOHAN, R.SASIPRABHU, RAKESH GUPTA, RANDHIR JAIN, RANI JETHMALANI, Ranjan Dwivedi, RAVI VERMA, S.B.Upadhyay, S.C.ROY, S.K.AGNIHOTRI, S.K.JAIN, S.KACHVALA, S.N.BHATT, S.R.Setia, S.SUKUMARAN, SHYAMALA PAPPU, SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY, Sudarsh Menon, T.S.VAIDYANATHAN, T.T.KUNHIKANNAN, T.V.S.N.Chari, V.D.KHANNA, V.KRISHNAMURTHY, VASANT SATHE
(1) LEARNED Additional Solicitor General states that the government definitely expects to be able to fix the economic criteria by 28/01/1992.
(2) W.P. No. 1094 of 1991 be tagged on with these cases.
(3) DELAY in filing amendment applications is condoned. All amendment applications filed challenging the Notification dated September 25, 1991 are allowed. Counter-affidavit by way of reply to the amendment in the petitions to be filed within three weeks and rejoinder, if any, within one week thereafter.
(4) ALL amendments be carried out now in red ink in the original petitions within a week.
(5) HEARING of the cases is adjourned to 28/01/1992. Counsel are directed to file a brief summary of their propositions and the authorities relied on by them (merely citations) not exceeding five pages by 21/12/1991. Apportionment of time for hearing of the counsel will be made thereafter. Matters to be listed on 28/01/1992 at the top of the Regular Board
(6) AS far as the question of stay granted by us earlier is concerned, we see no reason to pass any order at this stage as the petitions are posted for hearing on 28/01/1992 and in view of the economic criterion not being yet determined and other relevant circumstances, no question of immediate implementation of the notification arises.
COURT Master