LAW

Supreme Court On Local Authority

Housing Board of Haryana, Appellant v. Haryana Housing Board Employees Union and others, Respondents.

KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.

Haryana Housing Board Act (1971), Section 72- "Local Authority" - Haryana Housing Board - Have no semblance of independence normally possessed by local self-Government is not "Local Authority" within meaning of Section 32 (iv). Article 12 of the Constitution contains the definition of "State" which is an inclusive definition and includes Government and Parliament of India, Government and the Legislature of each of the State as also all local or other Authorities. Article 12 does not define "Local Authority" but defines "State". The attempt of the Board to invoke the rule of ejusdem generis which cannot be permitted. While interpreting the definitions of "Local Authority" contained in the two Acts, namely, the General Clauses Act and the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971, the rule of ejusdem generis can be invoked but this rule cannot be applied to Article 12 as the definition of "State" in this Article includes several bodies which are heterogeneous in character and, there is no genus in the definition.

(Source: AIR 1996 Supreme Court 434)

Himachal Pradesh High Court On Overstay by Foreigners

Fred Howard Haering. Petitioner v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Respondents.

V. RATNAM, C.J. AND A.L. VAIDYA, J.

Foreigners Act (31 of 1946), Section 3(2) Deportation for overstaying - Foreigner with limited leave to enter or remain in country - Not registering himself as per provisions of Act or Rules - No application made for extension of stay before expiry of period of visa - Order of deportation passed against him - Does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity No violation of principles of natural justice as there was nothing, on which foreigner was required to be heard Fact that his efforts for developing business in country, in terms of money as well as time, would be wasted - Cannot be a ground for quashing order.

(Source: AIR 1996 Himachal Pradesh 27)

The minorities perceive that Narasimha Rao is responsible for the Babari Masjid demolition and so don't want him.

-C.K. Jaffer Sharief

Delhi High Court On 'Other Authority' and 'State'

M/s Sanghi Technologies Pvt. Limited, Petitioner v. Union of India and others, Respondents.

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, C.J., ARUN KUMAR AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.

Constitution of India, Articles 12, 226 "Other Authority" - Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts- Constitution of body and articles of deed of declaration of trust speaks volumes about

Government's all-pervasive control over it - Thus it is an instrumentality of State and hence "other authority" within meaning of Article 12 - Amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

18. The Bench deciding that case came to that conclusion basically on the ground that: (i) the main object of the Trust cannot be regarded as governmental functions as the object, referred to in the order, appearing in one of the clauses of the objects, postulating analysis of the data and information and the supply of the same to scholars etc. would not mean that the Centre is discharging any governmental functions; (ii) there was no pervasive control of the Government and (iii) the case was similar to NCERT's case (AIR 1992 SC 76) (supra).

With respect, it appears, that the fundamental and most important heads of the objects of the Trust, pervasive control of the Government of India is clearly visible.

19. Though given the form of Trust, spelt out as an autonomous body, as observed in Ajay Hasia's case (AIR 1981 SC 487) (supra), we feel, it is really the Government which acts through the instrumentality or agency of respondent NO.2 and the juristic veil of an autonomous body worn for the purpose of convenience of management and administration cannot be allowed to obliterate the true nature of the reality behind which is the Government and if the Government acting through its officers is subject to certain constitutional limitations, it must follow a fortiori that the Government acting through the instrumentality or agency of a corporation or any other form should equally be subject to the same limitations.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the considered view that IGNCA, respondent No. 2, is an instrumentality of the State and hence "other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and thus, amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question referred to us is answered accordingly.

(Source: AIR 1996 Delhi 74)

Delhi Government considered buffalo meat as beef

-M.L.Khurana, BJP Leader