Warrant of Precedence being arbitrary, irrational, whimsical and capricious is subject to judicial review: The High Court Division having considered the respective status and positions of different constitutional functionaries and the persons in service of the Republic rightly held that though impugned Warrant of Precedence is a policy decision of the Government yet “in the absence of evidence of any discernible guidelines, objective standards, criteria or yardsticks upon-which the impugned Warrant of Precedence is ought to be predicated, we feel constrained to hold that the said Warrant of Precedence cannot shrug off the disqualification of being arbitrary, irrational, whimsical and capricious and is, therefore, subject to judicial review under Article 102 of the Constitution.”

The law gives the Deputy Commissioner to acquire any property if he is satisfied that the property is needed for public purpose. In the notice the Deputy Commissioner specifically mentioned the purpose for which the notice was served that it was for the public purpose of Baddyabhumi. This order clearly spelt out the actual existence of requirement for a public purpose within the meaning of section 3 of the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982. If the reason for the issuance of the notice of acquisition was not one contemplated by law, the initiation of the proceedings would be void. It is the Deputy Commissioner who is primarily the judge of the facts which would attract section 3 of the ordinance. This opinion cannot be replaced by any other authority.

In the instant case, the defendant did not admit the case of the plaintiff and filed written statement denying the plaintiff’s claim that the suit property was an abandoned property, so it was the plaintiff who had the right to begin the hearing of the suit as per provision of rule 1 of order XVIII of the Code. Rule 2(1) of the Code has clearly provided that on the day fixed for hearing of the suit the party having the right to begin shall state his case and produce evidence in support of the issues which he is bound to prove, the other party shall then state his cause and produce his evidence (if any) and may then address the Court generally on the whole case. Therefore, there was no scope on the part of the plaintiff to avoid examination of witness and state the facts of the plaint at the hearing of the suit.

Bequest by a Mohamedan to his heir of any quantum of property requires the consent of his other heirs after his death to be valid. But a bequest by a Mohamedan to any stranger (other than his heir) upto one-third of the surplus of his property which remains after payment of his funeral expenses and debts is valid and does not require consent of the heirs of the testator. Bequest to a stranger over and above one-third of the property of the testator which remains after payment of funeral expenses and debts of the testator requires the consent of the heirs of the testator after his death to be valid.

No one has any right to endanger the life of the people which includes their health and normal longevity of an ordinary healthy person. Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution not only means protection of life and limbs necessary for full enjoyment of life but also includes amongst others protection of health and normal longevity of an ordinary human being. It is the obligation of the State to discourage smoking and consumption of tobacco materials and the improvement of public health by preventing advertisement of tobacco made products. Though the obligation under Article 18(1) of the Constitution cannot be enforced, State is bound to protect the health and longevity of the people living in the country as right to life guaranteed under Articles 31 and 32 of the Constitution includes protection of health and longevity of a man free from threats of man-made hazards. Right to life under the aforesaid Articles of the Constitution being fundamental right it can be enforced by this Court to remove any unjustified threat to health and longevity of the people as the same are included in the right to life.

It is patent from the records that all the respondents went through the rigorous process of selection and were appointed in their respective post. They were served with notices cancelling their appointment without issuing any show cause notice. The respondents joined their posts and served accordingly for more than nine months at the time of filing their writ petition.
We are of the view that without issuing any show cause notice the petitioners could not lawfully cancel the letter of appointment of the respondents.

The High Court Division committed an error of law in holding that the date on which carriage stopped was the date on which the carrier defendants admitted its failure to deliver its goods finally and offered payment of compensation in lieu of the goods. The time for limitation began to run from the expiry of 7 days after the date on which the goods ought to have arrived, that is, on 22.01.1999. Since the suit was filed on 24.05.2001 apparently the same was barred by limitation in view of special limitation provided in Rule 29 of the first schedule of the Carriage by Air (International Convention) Act, 1966 read with section 29 of the Limitation Act.

The transfer/allotment of the water body by EPB to BGMEA and consequently the change of the nature and character of the said water body (“Joladhar”) by BGMEA is completely violative of the said two laws and as such the violators are liable to be punished with imprisonment and fine and such illegal construction is liable to be demolished for which BGMEA or any other person is not liable to get any compensation.