Petitioner No.1………………………………………..M/s Landmughal Pvt. Ltd. & ors.

V State
of Manna Pradesh

Petitioner No.2……………………………………….Mr. Changan Peddy & Ors v. state of

manna Pradesh

M/s Landmughal Pvt. Ltd. And Mr. Changan Peddy have approached the High Court of Manna
Pradesh under Article 226 of the Constitution of Kailasha,1950 questing the constitutionality of
the Manna Pradesh state decentralized act.

Statement of facts

The facts of the present case can be summarized as under:

1.

In Gujarat Abuja Cements Ltd v UOI,429 the Supreme Court has stated the outlines for determining the
constitutionality of a Statute thus:— (1) The substance of the impugned Act must be looked at to
determine whether it is in “pith and substance” within a particular entry whatever its ancillary effect
may be.430 (2) Where the encroachment is ostensibly ancillary, but in truth beyond the competence of
the enacting authority, the statute will be a colorable piece of legislation and constitutionally invalid.431
If the statute is legislatively competent, the enquiry into the motive which persuaded Parliament or the
State legislature into passing an Act is irrelevant.

Sub- issues

1. Governor discretionary power to give assent to the bill.

2. What does mean by government order was pass (will it include it is passed by both the
houses and signed by them.
3. The president bifurcate the High court, presently functioning in Naravati.
4. According to section 6 of M.p reorganistaion act the central government shall constitute
an expert committee to study various alternatives regarding new capital

Ultra virus to a parent act