TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (8) TMI 460
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Court of Special Judge, Sirohi on the ground of violation of Rule 6(a) of the Rajasthan Cattle Fodder (Sale of Stock and Prohibition of Export) Order, 1981 (for short 'the Order'). The allegations were that the petitioner had imported 25 bags of Guar from Gujarat to Abu Road by Truck No. RJQ 4162 and thus violated the provisions of the Order. A number of grounds have been raised in the petition for getting the proceedings pending before the Special Judge, Sirohi quashed, but the learned Counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments to the point that the Order of 1981 ceased to have force on July 31, 1983. As such after the expiry of that temporary statute no prosecution under Order can be launched or continued on the ground of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....proceedings in the case were initiated. His argument however is that the Order was enacted under the provisions of the Act and therefore, violation of any provision in the Order would make a person liable to punishment if the violation by him was during the period the Order was not in force. 7. It was in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-clauses (b) and (c) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (Central Act X of 1955) read with notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Agriculture and Cooperative) published under Order No. 32-5/79-. DII dated September 10, 1981 that the State Government had made the Order of 1981. At that time Section 1 of the Act read as under: Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be violated came for consideration before this Court in the case of Ramchander v. State of Rajasthan 1972 RLW 273. The matter related to some alleged offence under Rajasthan Guest Control Order 1965. By the Notification No. S.O. 29 dated September 9, 1971 the Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1965 was rescinded. The offence in entertaining 500 to 600 persons was alleged to have been committed on May 27 and 28, 1971 by the petitioner. The S.H.O. submitted his report on May 29, 1971 requesting the Court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act read with Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Guest Control Order, 1965. On receipt of the report the SDM Parbatsar ordered to register the case and issued warrant of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11. The principles enunciated in the above referred case and the decisions referred to therein are in full force applicable to the case on hand. In this connection reference may also be made to the principles enunciated in the case of Qudrat Ullah v. Bareilly Municipality [1974] 2 SCR 530 . The litigation in the case related to the construction of a contract between the Municipal Board, Bareilly and the Thekedar under it of the Municipal Market. When there was litigation for ejectment, the defendant raised the argument of vested right by virtue of the U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (3 of 1974). The argument did not find favour with their Lordships. It was held that after the enactment of the UP. Public Premises (Eviction ....