Site No .
In. Nageshwar Rao & Company. v. Point out of A. P
1994 (6) SCC 205
India is a Union of Declares and is governed by a written constitution. Legal rights being immunities denote that there is a guarantee that particular things cannot or should not to be achieved to a person against his will. According to this principle, human beings, by virtue of their mankind, ought to be protected against unjust and deteriorating treatment. Hence the rule of the protection of man rights comes from the concept of a man as a person and his romance with a great organized society, which cannot be separated from universal being human. Human beings happen to be rational beings. They due to their getting human possess certain standard and individual rights. We certainly have tried to crown this concept by simply adopting a written cosmetic and thus making sure people that absolutely nothing can be done to take a way the basic requirements of individual life from their store even by the state. The modern day case study works with the in depth analysis of the loopholes within today's culture due to non-application of a Content 300 in its proper kind. This subject also shows how users of the culture have made make use of the contrary actions of various laws for their own personal profits and then attempted to dodge from your legal activities and punishments.
To be able to understand the issues raised in our matter it is important to go through the important points of the case which in turn led to the following disputes. There are a set of complaints and hence it is essential to simply focus on therelevant issues and facts realted to our analysis and stay with facts in gist. It is often found and is also not disputed that the appellant carried on business in fertiliser and foodgrains under licence issued by appropriate authorities. Its property were stopped at by the Law enforcement Inspector, Watchful Cell upon 11-8-1975 and huge stocks of fertilisers, foodgrains and even nonessential goods were seized. Within the report posted by the Inspector, the Area Revenue Expert (in brief 'the DRO') on 31-8-1975, in exercise of powers under Section 6-A in the Essential goods Act, directed the fertilizer to be put into the guardianship of Helper Agricultural Official (in brief 'AAO') for distribution to needy ryots and the foodgrains and non- essential goods in the guardianship of Tehsildar for disposing it of immediately and depositing the sale proceeds in the Treasury. The AAO would not take any kind of steps to get rid of the fertilizer. Therefore , the appellant made applications about 17-9-1975 and 21-9-1975 ahead of the DRO and 11-2-1976 ahead of AAO that since no steps were being taken the fertiliser shall deteriorate and shall be made useless causing huge damage to the appellant. Request was performed for diverting the fertiliser either for the places described by the appellant as the necessity was more there or release that in its favor for fingertips and pay in of the sale price. Yet neither virtually any order was passed by DRO nor any actions was used by the AAO. On 29-6-1976 the actions under Section 6-A in the Act had been decided and the stock of horsegram (foodgrain) was confiscated as the appellant's license had been cancelled. As regards fertilizer it was placed that the explanation of the appellant for difference in share was not acceptable. The only infringement of Control Orders found was poor maintenance of accounts. In consequence of the finding, alternatively in lack of any materials to provide evidence that the appellant was doing any significant infringement just like black advertising or adulteration or selling at bigger price compared to the controlled selling price, the Enthusiast was left with little option except to direct confiscation of part of the stock plus the rest was released in favour of the appellant. That the confiscated inventory was simply nominal, should be clear via a relative chart in the...