SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Hyderabad Zindabad, An Ngo vs State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 16 September, 2019

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 81 OF 2019

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought three

reliefs from this Court, which are as under:-

(a) to declare the impugned Telangana Heritage Act 2017
as illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the enabling
laws for protection and conservation of heritage
monuments;
(b) declaring the action of the 1st respondent herein

ordering the demolition of the ‘Irrum Manzil’ Heritage
structure to make for the construct the new legislature
complex in its place, as ultra vires and violative of the
constitutional scheme, pertaining to protection and
conservation of heritage monuments and buildings and the
enabling laws made thereunder; and

(c) consequently direct the respondent No. 1 to protect and
conserve the monuments set out under the Andhra
Pradesh Ancient and Historical Monuments and
Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960 and the Rules
made thereunder and also protect and conserve the
heritage structures as set out in the HUDA Zoning
Regulations until the Telangana Heritage Act, 2017 is
judicially reviewed and the lacunae in it are cured by the
legislature.

2. The detailed facts of the case have already

been narrated in Writ Petition (PIL) Nos.79 of 2019 and
2

86 of 2019. Therefore, they are not being recorded

herein. Therefore, only the bare facts, essential for the

understanding of the controversy involved in this case,

are being narrated as under:

3. In 1870, Nawab Safdar Jung Musheer-ud-

Daula Fakhrul-Mulk himself designed, and got

constructed a 150 room palace for his family, popularly

known as ‘Irrum Manzil’. The palace is sprawled over 36

acres, 36 guntas, on top of a hillock known as

“Erragadda” or “red hill” in the Telugu language. The

word “Errum” means the colour ‘red’ in Telugu language.

The controversy in the present case revolves around the

proposed demolition of the said palace due to the Cabinet

decision dated 18.06.2019 wherein the Council of

Ministers has decided to construct a new legislative

complex at the site of the palace.

4. Keeping in mind the twin aspects of

preservation of historical monuments lying within the

former State of Andhra Pradesh, the said State had

enacted the Andhra Pradesh Ancient and Historical

Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act,

1960 (“the Act, 1960”, for short).

5. But simultaneously keeping in mind the need

to regulate, supervise and control the development of
3

urban areas, the former State of Andhra Pradesh had

enacted the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development)

Act, 1975 (‘the Urban Areas Act’, for short). The Urban

Areas Act not only prescribes the constitution of an

Urban Art Commission, which would advice the

government with regard to the preservation and

conservation of “historical monuments”, but also

empowered the then Hyderabad Urban Development

Authority (‘HUDA’), to promulgate Regulations for urban

development by invoking its power under Section 59 of

the Urban Areas Act.

6. Consequently, on 14.12.1995, the HUDA

framed and incorporated Regulation 13 within the

Bhagyanagar Urban Development Zoning Regulations,

1981 (“the Zoning Regulations, 1981”, for short). The

said regulation was duly approved by the government by

G.O. Ms. No. 542, dated 14.12.1995.

7. The said regulation was framed “for the

purpose of conserving the buildings, artefacts, structures

and/or precincts off historical and/or aesthetical and/ or

architectural and/or cultural value, which were referred to

as “Heritage Buildings and Heritage Precincts”. The said

regulation further prescribed that the government should

constitute a Heritage Conservation Committee (‘the
4

Committee’, for short). The Committee was imposed with

a duty to identity “heritage buildings” which need to be

protected by the government. Upon the recommendation

of the Committee, by G. O. Ms. No. 102, dated

23.03.1998, the Government had notified and declared

137 buildings lying within Hyderabad as “heritage

buildings”. One of the buildings, so notified and

protected as “heritage buildings”, is the Irrum Manzil,

shown at serial No.47 of the list attached to the said

notification. Subsequently, by G. O. Ms. No.185, dated

22.04.2006, fourteen more buildings were added to the

list. Thus, in total, 151 buildings were declared as

“protected heritage buildings” within Hyderabad.

8. Moreover, Regulation 13(2) of the Zoning

Regulations, 1981 restricted the demolition of the

“heritage buildings”, without the prior written permission

of the Vice-Chairman, HUDA (presently, the

Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development

Authority, ‘the HMDA’, for short). According to the said

Regulation, the vice-chairman, HUDA (presently, the

Commissioner of Hyderabad Metropolitan Development

Authority, “the HMDA”, for short) has to act on the advice

of the Committee. Therefore, Regulation 13(2) of the
5

Zoning Regulations, 1981 prescribes the procedure,

established by law, for demolition of “a heritage building”.

9. Subsequently, considering the fact that the

city of Hyderabad had grown into Metropolitan City, the

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act,

2008 (‘the HMDA Act’, for short) was brought into force.

With the HMDA coming into existence, HUDA was

abolished. Moreover, under the HMDA Act, Section 57

empowered the HMDA to frame the regulations. In fact,

Section 59 of the Urban Area Act, and Section 57 of the

HMDA Act are identical in their contents. Hence, after

2008, the HMDA is empowered to frame the Master

Plans, Zonal Plans, and the Zoning Regulations.

10. Consequently, in 2010, HMDA formulated the

Metropolitan Development Plan along with the Land Use

Zoning Regulations with regard to the core area of

HMDA–that is the area within the Ring Road of the city.

(Henceforth, while the Metropolitan Development Plan

shall be referred to as “Plan, 2010”, the regulations shall

be referred to as “the Zoning Regulations, 2010”, for

short). On 21.8.2010, the government sanctioned the

Zoning Regulations, 2010.

11. Regulation 2 of the Zoning Regulations, 2010

demarcated different zones of the Hyderabad city, e.g. the
6

residential, the commercial, the industrial zones etc.

Interestingly, keeping in mind the existence of heritage

buildings which were already declared to be protected by

the government, Regulation 2 of the Zoning Regulations,

2010 created a particular zone, namely “the Special

Reservation Use Zone”. More pertinently, Regulation 9

(A)(ii) Zoning Regulations, 2010 provided that Regulation

13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 and other relevant

orders or amendments issued by the government from

time to time shall be applicable”. Most importantly, the

site of Irrum Manzil was earmarked in Master Plan, 2010

as falling within the Special Reservation Zone.

12. Regulation 9 of the Zoning Regulations, 2010

mentions the Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations,

1981 by its title, namely G.O. Ms. No. 542 MA, dated

14.12.1995. Therefore, Regulation 13 of the Zoning

Regulations, 1981 has become part and parcel of the

Zoning Regulations, 2010.

13. However, being of the opinion that Regulation

13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 is inconsistent with

and ultra vires the Urban Areas Act, 1975, on 7.12.2015,

by G.O.Ms. No.183 the government deleted Regulation 13

of Regulations, 1981 “from its very inception”.
7

14. Moreover, being of the opinion that with the

repeal of Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981,

there was no law, which protected the “historical

monuments”, or “heritage buildings”, “historical sites”, or

“heritage sites”, and in order to protect such structures

and sites, the State enacted the Telangana Heritage

(Protection, Preservation, Conservation and SectionMaintenance)

Act, 2017 (‘the Act, 2017’, for short).

15. Furthermore, being of the view that with the

repeal of Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981

in 2015, Irrum Manzil has lost its status as “a protected

heritage building”, and wanting to construct a new

legislative complex for the new State of Telangana, on

18.06.2019, the Council of Ministers decided to construct

the legislative complex at the Irrum Manzil. As

mentioned above, the petitioner has not only challenged

the Cabinet decision to demolish Irrum Manzil, but has

also challenged the constitutional validity of the Act,

2017 before this Court.

16. Mr. P. Niroop Reddy, the learned counsel for

the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before

this Court:-

Firstly, SectionArticle 51 of the Constitution of India

imposes a duty upon the State to foster respect for
8

international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of

organized peoples with one another. Thus, it is the duty

of the State to keep in mind the obligations it has

undertaken under International Conventions.

Secondly, India is a signatory to the World Heritage

Convention, 1972 (‘Convention, 1972’, for short), which it

had ratified in 1977. SectionArticle 5 of Convention, 1972

imposes a duty upon the State “to protect and conserve

the cultural and natural heritage situated in its territory”.

It is further required “to adopt a general policy which

aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in

the life of the community and to integrate the protection of

that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes”.

Thirdly, keeping in mind the duties prescribed by

the Convention, 1972, keeping in mind that Entry 12,

List-II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of

India permits the State to enact laws for ancient and

historical monuments, the former State of Andhra

Pradesh had enacted the Act, 1960. Moreover, under

Section 39 of the Urban Areas Act, the State was required

to constitute an Urban Art Commission whose duty it

was to recommend the protection of historical

monuments and historical sites to the government.

Furthermore, even under Regulation 13 of the Zoning
9

Regulations, 1981, the government had constituted the

Heritage Conservation Committee. Upon the

recommendation of the said Committee, 151 buildings

were declared as “protected heritage buildings”.

However, Act, 2017 has brought about a horde of

confusion in the laws dealing with historical monuments

and heritage buildings. In order to support this

argument, the learned counsel has presented the

following sub-arguments:-

(a) In its Statement of Objects and Reasons, the

Act, 2017 has clearly stated that “there is no other

legislation to deal with heritage buildings, precincts

including rock formation in other rural and urban areas of

Telangana State outside the HMDA area”. Thus, the

impression being created is that, but for the HMDA area,

there is no legislation to deal with the preservation and

conservation of heritage buildings, rock formations etc.,

in the rest of the State. Thus, it clearly reveals that the

legislature was well aware of the existence of Regulation

13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 under which 151

“heritage buildings” were given the status of being

“protected”. And yet, Section 1(2) of the Act, 2017 claims

that the Act extents to the “whole of the State of
10

Telangana”. Thus, it is unclear whether the Act repeals

Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 or not?

(b) SectionThe Act further compounds confusion. For,

the Act, 2017 repeals neither the Urban Areas Act, nor

the Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981.

Under Section 39 of the Urban Areas Act, the State is

required to constitute an Urban Art Commission, yet

under the Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981,

the State is required to constitute the Committee. But

under Section 6 of the Act, 2017, the State is required to

constitute the “Telangana State Heritage Authority” (“the

Authority”, for short). Interestingly, “the Commission”,

“the Committee”, and “the Authority” are bestowed with

the same set of duties, namely to recommend the

preservation, conservation of “historical monuments,

archaeological sites, heritage buildings and heritage

sites”. Therefore, it is unclear as to which of these

entities is required to recommend to the government?

Furthermore, it is also unclear as to recommendations of

which entity would be binding upon the government?

(c) According to SectionArticle 11(2) of the Convention,

1972, the State is required “to establish, to keep up to

date, and to publish the list of ‘World Heritage'”.

However, under the Act, 2017, no such list exists. In the
11

absence of proper list, being mentioned and published,

the very purpose of the Act, 2017 stands self-defeated.

(d) Even the Schedules, attached to the Act, 2017,

have been drawn up without application of mind. For,

important monuments from the ancient and medieval

periods have been included. However, the monuments

created by the Qutb Shahi and the Asaf Shahi period (the

Nizam period) have not been included in the Act, 2017.

Thus, gapping holes exist in the Act, 2017. Most

interestingly, Schedule-I of the Act, 2017 includes certain

monuments, such as megalithic monuments, which no

longer exist. Therefore, the Act, 2017 suffers from non-

application of mind. Hence, the Act, 2017 is an

unconstitutional one.

17. On the other hand, Mr. J. Ramchandra Rao,

the learned Additional Advocate General has countered

these arguments as under:-

Firstly, undoubtedly, under SectionArticle 51 of the

Constitution of India, the State is under a legal duty to

fulfill its obligations under Treaties and Conventions.

However, the Act, 2017 is, in fact, enacted for the State to

fulfill its duties under the Convention, 1972.

Secondly, the entire challenge to the

constitutionality of the Act, 2017 is highly misplaced.
12

For, the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the

Act, 2017 on the three well-known grounds, namely (i)

lack of competency of the State to enact the laws; (ii)

violation of fundamental rights mentioned in Part-III of

the Constitution of India; and (iii) the Act being so

manifestly absurd that the legislature could not have

enacted the law. Therefore, the petition deserves to be

dismissed.

Thirdly, since Regulation 13 of the Zoning

Regulations, 1981 was already repealed on 7-12-2015, by

G.O. Ms. No. 183, there was no occasion for the Act,

2017 to repeal the said regulation. Moreover, since the

new State of Telangana was enacting a new law for the

protection of “historical monuments”, “heritage

buildings”, there was no need for the Act, 2017 to repeal

the Act, 1960.

Fourthly, under SectionArticle 246(3) of the Constitution of

India read with Entry 12, List-II of Seventh Schedule of

the Constitution of India, the State is competent to enact

a law for the protection of “ancient monuments” and

“heritage buildings”. Even if Entry 12 of the Seventh

Schedule of the Constitution of India does not use the

word “heritage building”, even then, the “heritage

building” is a species of “historical monuments”. Hence,
13

the State legislature is competent to enact Act, 2017

dealing with “historical monuments” and “heritage

buildings”.

Fifthly, Act, 2017 does not violate the fundamental

rights of the people. In fact, since “heritage” is part of the

identity of an individual, by protecting “heritage

buildings”, the Act, 2017 enforces and protects the right

to life. For, the right to life also includes the identity of

an individual, and the dignity of an individual.

Therefore, Act, 2017 per se promotes fundamental rights

mentioned in Part-III of the Constitution of India.

Moreover, Act, 2017 is also in consonance with the

Directive Principles contained in SectionArticle 49 of the

Constitution of India, whereby the State is duty bound

“to protect every monument or place or object of artistic

or historical interest”.

Sixthly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

needlessly tried to create an impression that the Act,

2017 has ushered a plethora of confusion. However, no

such confusion exists in reality. In order to support this

argument, the learned counsel has raised the following

sub-arguments before this Court:-

(a) Although Section 39 of the Urban Areas Act

prescribes the constitution of the Urban Art Commission,
14

such a Commission was never established by the State.

Therefore, there is no Commission, which was functional

in the past, or is functioning in the present.

(b) Since Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations,

1981 has been repealed by the State the question of

existence of the Committee does not even arise.

(c) Therefore, the Authority is the only entity,

which is required to be created by the State. But even

the said Authority has not been constituted, so far, by

the State. Hence, the question of three different

authorities working simultaneously in the same field

does not even arise.

(d) Since Act, 2017 has been enacted within the

competency of the State legislature it is for the State

legislature to decide which monument needs protection,

and which monuments need not be protected. Moreover,

the Schedules attached with the Act, 2017 are not rigid.

They are open to amendments, modifications, and

alterations. Therefore, nothing precludes the government

from incorporating other monuments, which have not

been incorporated in the Schedules, so far. Thus, the

learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in

claiming that the Schedules attached to the Act, 2017

reveal non-application of mind.

15

(e) The learned counsel for the petitioner is

simultaneously blowing hot and cold. For, on the one

hand, he claims that the Schedules attached to the Act,

2017 suffer from non-application of mind. Yet, on the

other hand, claims that “no list” exists in Act, 2017.

Obviously, Schedules are the very “list” which are

required to be declared and published under SectionArticle 11(2)

of the Convention, 1972. Hence, Act, 2017 is not only in

consonance with the Constitution of India, but is in

compliance of the Convention, 1972. Thus, according to

the learned Additional Advocate General the Act, 2017 is

constitutionally valid.

18. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

considered the record.

19. It is, indeed, trite to state that there is a

presumption in favor of the constitutional validity of an

enactment. The burden of proof lies on the party who

claims that the law is unconstitutional to establish the

said claim. Thus, it is for the petitioner to discharge the

burden of proof.

20. It is, indeed, trite to state that the

constitutional validity of a provision of law can be

challenged only on three grounds; (i) lack of competency

of the legislature, (ii) violation of fundamental rights of
16

the people, and (iii) if the Act suffers from

unreasonableness to the extent of being covered by

Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness i.e. if the law

is so absurd and unreasonable that a reasonable person

could have never enacted such a law. Interestingly, in

the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner

has frankly conceded that he is not challenging the

constitutional validity of Act, 2017 on these three

grounds. Instead, the challenge is on the ground that

the Act, 2017 is in violation of Convention, 1972. And it

has ushered a cornucopia of confusion in law. Thus, it is

unreasonable. But, merely because a law may not be

well drafted, and may be unclear, that itself would not

make the law unconstitutional.

21. Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act, 2017

is as under:

According to SectionArticle 51A (f) under Part IV-A
‘Fundamental Duties’ of Constitution of India, it
shall be the duty of every citizen of India to
value and preserve the rich heritage of our
composite culture.

The Telangana Ancient and Historical
Monuments and Archeological Sites and
Remains Act, 1960 (Act VII of 1960) inter alia
deals mainly with ancient, and historical
monuments and antiquity, subject to certain
conditions specified therein.

Regulation 13 of Hyderabad Urban
Development Authority Zoning Regulations 1981
as amended in 1995 made under the
Telangana Urban Areas (Development) Act,
1975 dealt with the conservation of listed
17

building, areas, artefacts, structures and
precincts of heritage and / or aesthetical and /
or architectural and / or cultural value (heritage
buildings heritage precincts) including rock
formation in HMDA area only. Further, the
Regulation 13 was found to be inconsistent with
the Telangana Urban Areas (Development) Act,
1975 and was deleted vide G.O. Ms No 183, MA
dated 7.12.2015.

There is no other legislation to deal with
heritage buildings precincts including rock
formation in other rural and urban areas of
Telangana State outside the HMDA area and for
their conservation including rock formation and
to protect heritage and culture of Telangana
State which is a blend of Telugu and Persian
culture. It has therefore been considered
necessary and decided to undertake a separate
legislation for conservation and preservation of
heritage buildings and heritage precincts
including rock formation and other heritage in
the State of Telangana.

Hence a bill is proposed which seeks to
give effect to the above.

22. It is true that the Statement of Objects and

Reasons clearly claims that “there is no other legislation to

deal with heritage buildings, precincts including rock

formation in other rural and urban areas of Telangana

State outside the HMDA area”. The use of the words,

“outside the HMDA area” does create an impression that

there is a law dealing with “heritage buildings, precincts

including rock formation” within the HMDA area.

However, considering the fact that the Statement of

Objects and Reasons also notices that Regulation 13 of

the Zoning Regulations, 1981 was repealed by G.O. Ms.
18

No. 183, dated 07.12.2015, the statement, quoted

hereinabove, is merely an example of bad drafting.

23. Moreover, Section 1 (2) of the Act, 2017

unequivocally states that “the Act shall extent to the

whole of the State of Telangana”. Therefore, the scope of

Section 1 (2) of the Act, 2017 cannot be cribbed, cabined,

and confined by the bad drafting of the Statement of

Objects and Reasons. Thus, the Act, 2017 does apply to

the entire State of Telangana. To this extent, there is no

confusion caused by the Act.

24. However, the issue which continues to exist is

whether the mentioning of Regulation 13 of the Zoning

Regulations, 1981 in Regulation 9(A)(ii) of the Zoning

Regulations, 2010 is “legislation by incorporation” or

“legislation by reference”. This issue is no longer res

integra as this issue has already been decided by this

Court in W.P. (PIL) Nos. 79 and 86 of 2019. In the said

writ petitions, this Court has concluded that the

mentioning of Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations,

1981 in the Regulation 9(A) of the Zoning Regulations,

2010 is by way of “incorporation”, and not by way of

“reference”.

25. Once it is held that the mentioning of

Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 is by
19

“incorporation”, the subsequent repeal of Regulation 13

of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 by G.O. Ms. No. 183,

dated 07.12.2015 would not obliterate, or extinguish the

presence of Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations,

1981 within the Zoning Regulations of 2010. In fact, it is

a settled principle of law that even if the parental Act

dies, the incorporated part continues to survive.

Moreover, a subsequent modification or repeal does not

affect the incorporated portion. Hence, the protection

given under Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations,

1981 would continue to survive within the protected

arena of Zoning Regulations, 2010 and 2013.

26. Since Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations,

1981 continues to be alive, the only issue; that would

arise would be whether the protection granted under

Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 can

continue to exist while Act, 2017 holds the field. Even

this issue is no longer res integra. For, in W.P. (PIL) Nos.

79 and 86 of 2019 this Court has already opined that

while Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 is a

“local law”, the Act, 2017 is a “special law”. Therefore,

while Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981

would continue to operate within Hyderabad

Metropolitan Area, the Act, 2017 would cover the other
20

areas of the State. Thus, while the Committee created

under Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981

would continue to function qua the Hyderabad

Metropolitan Area, the Authority created under Act, 2017

would deal with the rest of the State. Hence, the

territorial jurisdiction of the Committee and the Authority

are well defined. Thus, there is no confusion as pleaded

by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, as

there is no contradiction between Regulation 13 of the

Zoning Regulations, 1981, and the Act, 2017, both the

provisions of law can peacefully co-exist. Therefore, there

is no confusion that has been caused by the enactment

of Act, 2017. Hence, the contentions raised by the

learned counsel for the petitioner are clearly untenable.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that Act, 2017 is

constitutionally valid.

27. Of course, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner has argued that the Act, 2017 does not contain

any list. But the stand being taken by the learned

Counsel is self-contradictory. For, simultaneously, the

learned Counsel contends that the Schedules attached to

the Act, 2017 are unreasonable as monuments of Qutb

Shahi, and Asaf Shahi period have not been included in

the Schedules. In fact, the Schedules are the “lists” which
21

the learned Counsel claims are non-existent. Hence, the

learned Counsel is unjustified in claiming that the Act,

2017 is contrary to the Convention, 1972.

28. Moreover, it is for the government to modify

the Schedules attached to the Act, 2017. Since the Act,

2017 empowers the government to modify the Schedules

on the basis of the recommendation of the Authority, it is

not for this court to direct the government to include the

Qutb Shahi and the Asaf Shahi monuments within the

purview of the Act, 2017.

29. Furthermore, this Court has already held in

Writ Petition (PIL) No. 79 of 2019 and Writ Petition (PIL)

No. 86 of 2019 that the protection once given to the

heritage buildings under Regulation 13 of the

Regulations, 1981 would continue under the protective

shield of Regulation 9(A) (ii) of the Zoning Regulations,

2010, and under Regulation 1.11.1 of Zoning Regulations

2013. This Court has also held that the Regulation 13 of

the Zoning Regulations, 1981 can co-exist with the Act,

2017. Hence, there is no need for this Court to direct the

government to include the protected heritage buildings of

the Qutb Shahi and the Asaf Shahi period within the Act,

2017.

22

30. But besides challenging the constitutional

validity of the Act, the petitioner has also challenged the

impugned Cabinet decision dated 18.06.2019, inter alia

on the ground that the said decision is in violation of

statutory provisions, hence arbitrary.

31. In W.P. (PIL) Nos. 79 and 86 of 2019, this

Court has already held that the Cabinet decision dated

18.06.2019 is, indeed, arbitrary and has set aside the

same. Therefore, this part of the relief, being prayed for

by the petitioner, is allowed in the terms of the decision

pronounced by this Court in W.P. (PIL) Nos. 79 and 86 of

2019.

32. For the reasons stated above, the present writ

petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

(RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, CJ)

_
(DR. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J)

16-09-2019

Tsr
23

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. SHAMEEM AKTHER

WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 81 OF 2019

(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)

Date: 16th September, 2019

Tsr

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation