Guwahati Court March 1981 Judgments
Bhupen Deka Vs. State of Assam
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-23-1981
K. Lahiri, J.1. In this habeas corpus application, the petitioner questions his detention under Section 3 of the National Security Ordinance, 1980, 'the Ordinance' hereinafter. The petitioner has been detained 'to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order/to the maintenance of supply and services essential to the community'. These are the two purposes for detention. The grounds are as follows:Shri Bhupen Deka, aged about 24 years, s/o Shri Rajma Deka of L.D. Road, Tezpur Town is a P- U. 2nd year College Student. He is the President of Tezpur Anchalik Chatra Santha. He has been playing a leading role in the current agitation and he has been organising 'Satyagraha' 'Bhundh' Picketing of Govt, offices etc. from time to time, during the past one year. Such 'Satyagraha', 'Bundh', Picketing etc. have been disturbing public order and also disrupting the supply and services essential to the community.For his prejudicial activities, order for his d...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Ka Kriksibon Kharkongor and anr. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner and ...
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-07-1981
K.N. Saikia, J.1. This application under Section 115 of the C. P. C. and/or Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order of the Deputy Commissioner, hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector', Khasi Hills, Shillong rejecting the petitioner's application in Land Acquisition case No. L. 14/5/51 of 1965 for reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter called 'the Act', on the ground of limitation.2. The petitioner -- Ka Kriksibon Khar-kongor @ Mrs. R. E. Haffield states to have lived together in public as husband and wife so as to constitute a valid marriage under Khasi customary law, with late R. E. Haffield till the lalter's death in the year 1953 in Valley View Bungalow at Upper Shillong, whereafter she has been living therein; and by Khasi customary law, is the sole heir of all the movable and immovable properties of her late husband, including the 93 acres of land of Spread Eagle Falls, commonly known as Umkaliar, acquired in the case for d...
Tag this Judgment!State of Assam Vs. Nirode Ranjan Dey
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-03-1981
Lahiri, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of acquittal. The respondent was prosecuted under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 for alleged violation of para 3 of the Foreigners (Restricted Areas) Order. 1963 (as amended).2. The following facts are not disputed by the parties : (1) That the respondent is a British citizen; (2) that he had a valid British passport permitting him to visit India: (3) the passport carried with it a request from the secretary of State, in the name of Her Majesty, to allow the holder of the passport to move freely without let or hindrance and to afford the holder every assistance and protection which he might stand in need: (4) the respondent upon arrival al Kokrajhar in Assam on 6-10-1978 presented himself at the police station with the passport, to disclose his arrival; (5) in turn, the officer-in-charge of the police station endorsed on the passport as 'Reported his arrival at Kokrajhar town on 6-10-78. Sd/- D. N. Pator, Officer-in-Charge, Kokra...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Chandra Koch Etc. Vs. District Magistrate, Dibrugarh and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Mar-02-1981
Lahiri, J. 1. The Habeas Corpus applications preferred by the detenus were heard together on 23-2-1981 as they involved common questions of law and facts. Upon hearing the Counsel for the parties we issued Writs of Habeas Corpus to liberate the petitioners with an observation that a reasoned judgment would follow. The reasons to bear up the order of release are now set forth. 2. The' petitioners were detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Ordinance. 1980 (II-hereinafter referred to as 'the Ordinance', by the District Magistrate, Dibrugarh 'with a view to preventing' them 'from acting in manner prejudicial to the public orderand the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community'. Later, the grounds were furnished by the detaining authority who bottomed the grounds that the detenus had been acting 'in a manner prejudicial to 'the maintenance of law and order and maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community'. 3. It follows that when the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›