HINDUSTAN TIMES Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(SC)-2002-11-47
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on November 01,2002

HINDUSTAN TIMES Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

BHAVANI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED R APPALO EDUCATIONAL TRUST R VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND APPALO EDUCATIONAL TRUST R BANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-2006-8-18] [REFERRED TO]
MYSORE CONSTRUCTION CO VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2009-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
VIBHA JAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-3-150] [REFERRED TO]
ICC DEVELOPMENT VS. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2012-9-69] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH JINDAL VS. BSES RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2007-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2004-1-84] [REFERRED TO]
TRISHUL INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2006-5-307] [REFERRED TO]
GUPTA MODERN BREWERIES VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(SC)-2007-4-109] [REFERRED TO]
CUDDALORE POWERGEN CORPORATION LTD VS. M/S CHEMPLAST CUDDALORE VINYLS LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2025-1-64] [REFERRED TO]
J K CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTOR AND SRI S V RANGA REDDY VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-272] [REFERRED TO]
RANU BALI VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(DLH)-2003-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
BENTEX EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. BENTEX TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2009-2-181] [REFERRED TO]
C.P. MITTAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2007-9-353] [REFERRED TO]
MISRILALL JAIN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2007-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
STARLIGHT BRUCHEM LTD. VS. STATE OF U.P., [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-85] [REFERRED TO]
SLS COLLEGE OF PHARMACY VS. PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2024-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
KAL PUBLICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2017-6-116] [REFERRED TO]
SATYENDRA KUMAR CONSTRUCTION PVT LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2006-8-59] [REFERRED TO]
TRIGGER GOODS PVT LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2009-4-47] [REFERRED]
KERALA SAMSTHANA CHETHU THOZHILALI UNION VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2006-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
A. V. V. B. EESWARA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-8-26] [REFERRED TO]
J. ASWARTHA NARAYANA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-12-60] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA KUMAR VS. RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD [LAWS(ALL)-2004-4-159] [REFERRED TO]
ANAMIKA YADAV VS. CHAIRMAN AND M.D., UNION BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-229] [REFERRED TO]
MODERN STEEL INDUSTRIES GHAZIABAD VS. STATE OF UP [LAWS(ALL)-2009-12-41] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. TRISHUL INDUSTRIES VS. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2006-5-541] [REFERRED TO]
YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-75] [REFERRED TO]
MANUSHI SANGTHAN, DELHI VS. GOVT. OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2010-2-276] [REFERRED TO]
LABA BARUAH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2007-6-12] [REFERRED TO]
GANASHAKTI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2015-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
MATHU RAM VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2007-7-83] [REFERRED TO]
THIYAGAVALLI PANCHAYATHAI SERNTHA NOCHIKKADU GRAMA VIVASAYIGAL PATHUKAPPU MATTRUM MAKKAL POTHUNALA SANGAM VS. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(MAD)-2008-3-204] [REFERRED TO]
SHIVANI SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-9-130] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. RUNWAL CONSTRUCTIONS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-5-10] [REFERRED TO]
KAVVAMPALLY BUDAMMA VS. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER [LAWS(TLNG)-2022-9-16] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB VS. DEVANS MODERN BREWARIES LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2003-11-86] [REFERERD TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. NAVEEN JINDAL [LAWS(SC)-2004-1-48] [REFERRED TO]
DIGAMBAR NAYAK VS. ORISSA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY [LAWS(ORI)-2016-1-60] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. DIKSHA SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2011-8-221] [REFERRED TO]
PATIKARI POWER LTD VS. HIMACHAL PRADESH ELECTRICITY [LAWS(ET)-2012-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATARAMANA SWAMY VIDYAVARDHAKA SANGHA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-12-57] [REFERRED TO]
YATAM BANGARU VENKAMMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2020-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
V S LAD AND SONS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2010-11-35] [REFERRED TO]
NEERMAHAL GAS AGENCY VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
AVINASH CHAND GUPTA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2004-1-113] [REFERRED TO]
RAI AJAY KUMAR AND 15 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND 4 OTHERES [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-135] [REFERRED TO]
CABLE OPERATORS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2019-4-208] [REFERRED TO]
SEAFOOD EXPORTERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-5-56] [REFERRED TO]
SAMDARIYA BUILDERS PVT. LTD VS. JABALPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(MPH)-2013-2-118] [REFERRED TO]
L H SUGAR FACTORYLTD VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD PILIBHIT [LAWS(ALL)-2004-7-125] [REFERRED TO]
G.V. SESHAMAMBA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-3-130] [REFERRED TO]
DINAVAHI LAKSHMI KAMESWARI VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2020-8-14] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)By reason of this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioners herein have questioned the validity of an order dated 24th September, 1991 as also one dated 16th October, 1991 issued by the Special Secretary, Goverment of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, whereby and whereunder a direction had been issued to the effect that at the time of payment of bills for publication of Government advertisements in all newspapers having a circulation of more than 25,000 copies, 5% of the amount thereof, forming part of a fund for the purpose of granting pension to the working journalists, would be deducted.
(2.)Petitioner No. 1 herein is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of publishing newspapers including 'The Hindustan Times'. Petitioner No. 2 is a shareholder of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 3 is its Director.
(3.)The petitioners have questioned the legality/validity of the said orders, inter alia, on the following grounds :
1. The impost, is not leviable either as a tax or as a fee having regard to the fact that the legislative field in relation to the payment of retiral benefits to the working journalists is covered by a Parliamentary Act known as the Working Journalists and other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 ('the said Act').

2. As the State of Uttar Pradesh had no legislative competence, it could not have issued the impugned orders in exercise of its power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India or otherwise.

3. Assuming that welfare of the working journalists is a field falling within Entry 24 of List III of the VIIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India, any State legislation would be the subject to the Central legislation and in that view of the matter too, the impugned orders are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.