Musamiya Imam Haiderbux Razvi vs State Of Gujarat & Anr
- SCC(2010) 13 SCC 752
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Constitution (Sixty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1990, which placed the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969 and the Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1977 in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, does not violate the basic structure of the Constitution, assessed by reference to the tests laid down in I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. vs. State of Tamil Nadu.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Musamiya Imam Haiderbux Rizvi ...Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Gujarat and Anr. ...Respondent(s)
With Civil Appeal No.6046 of 2002
O R D E R
Heard learned counsel on both sides. Having considered the matter at length, we are of the view that Constitution (Sixty-sixth Amendment) Act, 1990, [for short, `1990 Act'] is not violative of the basic structure of the Constitution. In this connection, we have examined the test propounded by I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2007 (2) SCC 1. Having regard to the tests laid down by that judgment, we uphold the constitutional validity of 1990 Act, insofar as it inserts Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition Act, 1969 [for short, `1969 Act'] and Gujarat Devasthan Inams Abolition (Amendment) Act, 1977, in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. Before concluding, we may mention that certain proceedings are pending before the Collector, Ahmedabad, which is the competent Authority under 1969 Act. The competent Authority ...2/-
- 2 -
[Collector] will decide expeditiously the pending claim of the appellant(s) on merits and in accordance with law. We express no opinion on the merits of the claim and on that aspect all contentions on both sides are kept open.
The civil appeals are, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.
....................CJI.
[S.H. KAPADIA]
......................J. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN]
......................J. [SWATANTER KUMAR] New Delhi, July 27, 2010.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free