It appears the provided "case content" is insufficient to create a case summary. The title references Section 240(2) and the Seventh Amendment Act of 1956, but there's no actual case presented, no facts, arguments, or a court decision. Section 240(2) of the Constitution, as amended by the Seventh Amendment, likely deals with the administration of Union Territories. Without more information, I can only provide a hypothetical example based on what the case might have been about.

Hypothetical Case Summary Example (Based on Section 240(2) and Union Territories)

Short Summary This case concerns the constitutional validity of administrative actions taken by the President's appointed administrator of a Union Territory under Section 240(2) of the Constitution, as amended by the Seventh Amendment Act of 1956. The holding likely affirmed the President's power to administer Union Territories through appointed administrators, subject to constitutional limitations and judicial review.

Facts The petitioner, a resident of a Union Territory, challenged an order issued by the administrator regarding land acquisition for a public project. The petitioner argued that the administrator acted beyond the scope of powers delegated under Section 240(2) and that the order violated fundamental rights.

Issues

1. Does Section 240(2) of the Constitution grant unfettered power to the President (and by extension, the administrator) to administer Union Territories?
2. Is the administrator's order regarding land acquisition a valid exercise of power under Section 240(2)?
3. Does the land acquisition order violate the petitioner's fundamental rights, specifically the right to property (assuming this was before the 44th Amendment) or Article 14?

Petitioner's Arguments The petitioner argued that Section 240(2) must be interpreted in light of fundamental rights and other constitutional provisions. The administrator's order was arbitrary, disproportionate, and lacked procedural safeguards, thus violating Article 14. The petitioner also contended that the land acquisition was not genuinely for a public purpose.

Respondent's Arguments The respondent (likely the Union of India) argued that Section 240(2) grants broad powers to the President to administer Union Territories. The administrator acted within the delegated authority, and the land acquisition was necessary for a legitimate public purpose. The respondent also argued that adequate compensation was offered, satisfying any potential violation of property rights.

Court's Reasoning The court likely held that while Section 240(2) grants significant administrative powers, it is not absolute. The exercise of these powers is subject to judicial review and must comply with fundamental rights and other constitutional principles. The court would then examine the administrator's order to determine if it was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in violation of any constitutional provision. The court would consider whether the land acquisition was genuinely for a public purpose and whether fair compensation was provided.

Conclusion The ruling would depend on the specific facts and arguments presented. The court might uphold the administrator's order if it found it to be a valid exercise of power and not in violation of any constitutional rights. Alternatively, the court might strike down the order if it found it to be arbitrary, discriminatory, or lacking in procedural fairness. The relief granted would depend on the specific findings, potentially including quashing the land acquisition order or directing the administrator to provide fair compensation.

Important Note: This is a hypothetical example. A real case summary requires the actual facts, arguments, and court's reasoning from the case itself.