| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 610 2013 SLD 610 2013 SCMR 670 |
Supreme Court of India
I.As. Nos.4, 5, I.As. Nos.6-8, I.As. Nos.9-11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.265 of 2011, decision dated: 3rd August, 2012
A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
I.As. Nos.4, 5, I.As. Nos.6-8, I.As. Nos.9-11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.265 of 2011, decision dated: 3rd August, 2012
A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
AVISHEK GOENKA
VS
UNION OF INDIA and anther
Law:
Section:
(a) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Enforceability of a provision in a statute---Plea was that enforceability of the provision caused inconvenience---Validity---Such plea was no ground for rendering a provision on the statute book to be unenforceable--- Individual inconvenience could not be a ground for giving the law a different interpretation. (b) Public interest litigation--- ----Order passed in public interest litigation---Nature---Such order would operate in rem---Court was not required to issue notices to every individual who was likely to be affected by the order. (c) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Principles---Interpretation of law was not founded on a single circumstance, particularly when such circumstance was very individualistic---Court was not expected to go into individual cases while dealing with interpretation of law. (d) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Principles---Hardship of few (individuals) could not be the basis for determining the validity of any statute---Law must be interpreted and applied on its plain language. Saurabh Chaudri and others v. Union of India and others AIR 2004 SC 361 : 2003 AIR SCW 6392 ref. JUDGMENT SWATANTER KUMAR, J.---The applications for impleadment and intervention are allowed subject to just exceptions. All applications for placing documents on record are also allowed. 2. I.A. No.5 of 2012 has been filed by the Dealers and Distributors of tinted films in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 265 of 2011 under Order XVIII, Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 against the dismissal of two interim applications, i.e., seeking permission to file application for impleadment and application for modification by the Registrar of this Court vide his Order dated 16th May, 2012. 3. The learned Registrar vide the impugned order noticed that application for impleadment was not maintainable inasmuch as the writ petition in which the application was filed has already been disposed of. In regard to the application for modification, according to the applicants, the petitioner suppressed various aspects of the matter and misled the court in passing the order and the same order was therefore, liable to be modified. Dealing with…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492