, UCL to maintain the jetty in good order and condition during the tenure of the agreement. -This appeal by special leave raises a question of the application of s. 18, on the parties to the dispute and not on the Manager or the Chief Medical Officer. The circumstances in which this question arises are these: A complaint was filed against one S. He had teased her, a day prior to the occurrence and had also winked at her on previous occasions.

Whenever a person complains and claims that there is a violation of law, it does not automatically involve breach of fundamental right for the enforcement of which alone Article 32 of the Constitution is attracted. Thus, in Director General of Doordarshan v. A member of Indian Company Law Service who has worked with Accounts Branch or officers in other departments who might have incidentally dealt with some aspect of Company Law cannot be considered as `experts' qualified to be appointed as Technical Members.

The agreement makes it clear that it is the duty of the licensee, i. Very recently, in Shreya Singhal v. The petitioner contends that duty at a particular rate prevalent at a particular date was not payable. It appears that the facts of this nature require elaborate procedural investigation and this Court should not be moved and should not entertain on these averments (sic) of the Article 32 of the Constitution. The question which arises on a reading of the said agreement is, therefore, whether any service is rendered by GMB or by any person authorized by GMB in relation to a vessel or goods.

The revenue has proceeded on that basis. Further, it is UCL that is to provide all services at or around the jetty including dredging, navigation, water supply etc. The Court followed the test laid down in the old English judgment in Hicklins case which was whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences and into who hands a publication of this sort may fall. There is procedure provided by law for determination of the payment of customs duty.

Thus, from the aforementioned discussion, it is clear that accused Prem Singh had cast an evil eye upon deceased Sunita. The petitioner without seeking to take any relief within the procedure envisaged under the Act had moved this Court for breach of fundamental right. Great strides have been made since this decision in UK, United States, as well as in our country. The petitioner cannot seek to remove the goods without payment at that rate or without having the matter determined by the procedure envisaged and enjoined by the law for that determination.

Anand Patwardhan[67], this Court notice the law in the United States and said that a material may be regarded as obscene if the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the subject matter taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest and that taken as a whole it otherwise lacks serious literary artistic, political, educational or scientific value (see para 31). 1169 dispute will be the employer on one side and his workmen on the other.

That being the position, the award, if any, 7 given by the Tribunal will be binding, under cl. It has further to be reiterated that for enforcement of fundamental right which is dependent upon adjudication or determination of questions of law as well as question of fact without taking any resort to the provisions of the Act, it is not permissible to move this Court on the theoretical basis that there is breach of the fundamental right. (See: clauses 15 and 16 set out above).

This Court in Ranjit Udeshi (supra) took a rather restrictive view of what would pass muster as not being obscene. (See: clause 28 of the agreement). 403 of the Criminal 60 Procedure Code. The Manager or the Chief Medical Officer cannot obviously be a party to the dispute, because he is riot a 'workman'within the meaning of the Act and there is no dispute between him and his employer. In a matter of this nature where liability of a citizen to pay a particular duty depends on interpretation of law and determination of facts and the provision of a particular statute for which elaborate procedure is prescribed, it cannot conceivably be contended that enforcing of those provisions of the Act would breach fundamental right which entitle a citizen to seek recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution.

Union of India[66], a two-Judge Bench of this Court, while dealing with the concept of obscenity, has held that:- 45. This is not permissible and should never be entertained. Therefore Clauses (a) and (b) of sub- section (3) are not valid. This position is clearly well settled, but sometimes we are persuaded to accept that an allegation of breach of law is an action in breach of fundamental right. (iii) A `Technical Member' presupposes an experience in the field to which the Tribunal relates.

We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that relief under Article 32 of the Constitution is wholly inappropriate in the facts and the circumstances of this case.