Writ petitioner challenged a notice regarding legal procedure post-repeal of the O.P.L.E Act 1954. The court disposed of the matter, holding that the procedure under the Act of 1972 governs and objections can be raised on merits.
The matter is disposed of with a direction that if proceedings are pending, the petitioner may raise objections on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No.6057 of 2017
6.04.2017
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The impugned notice under Annexure-2 has been assailed on the premises that for the re
pealing of the O.P.L.E Act 1954, the notice issued here is per se illegal. There is no denial
to the fact that the old Act has been repealed as substituted by the Act, 1972. Notice has bee
n issued in a format printed since long. Petitioner should not go by the format. The proceedin
g since initiated under the Act, 1972, it will be open to the petitioner to raise his objectio
n.
Considering the above, this matter stands disposed of with a direction that in the eve
nt, the proceeding is still pending, it will be open to the petitioner to raise his objection
on the merit of the proceeding and the proceeding shall be decided involving the petitioner.
Issue urgent certified copy on proper application.
(Biswanath Rath, J.)
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the notice for the procedure under the Act of 1972 is illegal since the O.P.L.E Act 1954 was repealed?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
Biswanath Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court