# Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479

- **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 841
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-08-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27427 of 2003
- **Bench:** M.Katju, R.S. Tripathi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/griswold-v-connecticut-381-u-s-479-40214
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226termination order-appointment on the
post
of
Sinch
Paryavekshak-Sinch
Parveshak
Sangh
made
complaintalleging the appointment to be fictitious-
in enquiry report dated 12.9.94 found
innocent-after submitting reply to the
chares-No any enquiry held-dismissal

## Text

http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Chilhuwan V. State of U.P. and others
841
meant to the courts-that a statute could be
struck down as unconstitutional only
"when those who have the right to make
laws have not merely made a mistake, but
have made a very clear one,-so clear that
it is not open to rational question." After
all, the Constitution is not a legal
document of the nature of a title deed or
the like, to be read closely and construed
with technical finality, but a complex
charter
of
government,
looking
to
unforeseeable future exigencies. Most
frequently, reasonable men will differ
about
its
proper
construction.
The
Constitution leaves open "a range of
choice
and
judgment,"
and
hence
constitutional
construction
'involves
hospitality to large purposes, not merely
textual exegesis'.

37. In Lochner vs. New York, 198
U.S. 45 (1905), Mr Justice Holmes, the
celebrated Judge of the U.S. Supreme
Court in his classic dissenting judgment
pleaded for judicial tolerance of state
legislative action even when the Court
may disapprove of the State Policy.
Similarly, in his dissenting judgment in
Griswold vs. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479.
Mr. Justice Hugo Black of the U.S.
Supreme Court warned that "unbounded
judicial creativity would make this Court
a day-to-day Constitutional Convention."
Justice Frankfurter has pointed out that
great judges have constantly admonished
their brethren of the need for discipline in
observing
their
limitations
(see
Frankfurter's 'Some Reflections on the
Reading of Statutes')

38. As Mr. Justice Holmes of the
U.S. Supreme Court observed in his
dissenting judgment in Tyson v. Banton,
273 US 418 (at petitioner 447)

"I am far from saying that I think
this particular law a wise and rational
provision. That is not my affair. But if the
people of the State of New York speaking
by their authorized voice say they want it,
I see nothing in the Constitution of the
United States to prevent their having their
will."
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 8.8.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M.KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27427 of 2003

Chilhuwan

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Singh, S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 14 Fishery
Right-Fishery
lease
granted
without
public auction/public tender, without
advertising in well known newspapers
having wide circulation. Held, illegal.

Held-Para 3

It has been held in several division
bench decisions of this Court that fishery
lease can only be granted by public
auction/public tender after advertising
the same in well known newspapers
having wide circulation in which all
persons can bid vide Ram Bharosey Lal
vs. State of U.P. 2002 (93) RD 659,
Diwaker Rai vs. SDO 2003 (95) RD 84,
Panchoo Vs. Collector 1995 (90) RD 186
etc. that fishery lease can only be
granted
by
a
public
auction/public
tender after advertising it in well known
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
842 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
newspapers having wide circulation. In
these decisions it has also been held that
the grant of fishery lease cannot be
confined to societies or members of any
particular caste.
Case referred to :
2002(93) RD 659, 2003 (95) RD 84, 1995 (90)
RD 186

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the
impugned
order
dated
12.5.2003
Annexure-2 to the writ petition by which
fishery
lease has been
granted
to
respondent no. 6.

3. It has been held in several
division bench decisions of this Court that
fishery lease can only be granted by
public
auction/public
tender
after
advertising the same in well known
newspapers having wide circulation in
which all persons can bid vide Ram
Bharosey Lal vs. State of U.P. 2002 (93)
RD 659, Diwaker Rai vs. SDO 2003 (95)
RD 84, Panchoo Vs. Collector 1995 (90)
RD 186 etc. that fishery lease can only be
granted by a public auction/public tender
after advertising it in well known
newspapers having wide circulation. In
these decisions it has also been held that
the grant of fishery lease cannot be
confined to societies or members of any
particular caste.

4. Sri Ashok Mehta learned counsel
for the respondent no. 6 has admitted that
the fishery lease in question was granted
to respondent no. 6 without holding
public auction and without advertising the
same in well known newspapers having
wide circulation. Thus it is evident that
the grant of fishery lease to the
respondent no. 6 was wholly illegal. The
impugned order is therefore quashed.

5. The petition is allowed.

6. The District Magistrate shall now
proceed to hold public auction/public
tender
of
the
fishery
lease
after
advertising it in well known newspapers
having wide circulations and allowing
everyone to bid. This should be done at
the earliest. As an interim measure we
direct the District Magistrate through his
officials to operate the fishery rights in
the pond in question.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD: 23.5.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.B. MISRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2978 of 1999

Shashi Kant Pandey

...Petitioner
Versus
Executive Engineer, Anusandhan Avam
Niyojan,
Jal
Sansadhan
Prakhand,
Varanasi and another
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Varma
Sri Sidhartha Varma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.C. Chaturvedi
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226termination order-appointment on the
post
of
Sinch
Paryavekshak-Sinch
Parveshak
Sangh
made
complaintalleging the appointment to be fictitious-
in enquiry report dated 12.9.94 found
innocent-after submitting reply to the
chares-No any enquiry held-dismissal