Guwahati Court November 1986 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Md. Masud Ali Mazumdar Vs. State of Assam and anr.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-26-1986
K. Lahiri, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.2. Over six years ago, way back on the 9th of Aprl. 1980, the District Magistrate, Cachar in exercise of his power under Section 5 of the Assam Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') ordered that the villagers of Dinonathpur Part 1 and Part II should pay a 'Collective fine' of Rs. 15,000/-within 25 days of the date of publication of the order. However, the amount of fine which each family of the village was liable to pay would be communicated individually to the families and a list would be prominently displayed in the village, the concerned Gaon Panchayat office and the office of the Sub-Deputy Collector, Katlisherra. Further, it was directed that the fine should be paid within 25 days from the date of receipt of the notice and in any case not later than 10th May, 1980 and that the fine would be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the person or persons concerned who fai...
Dhanbor GohaIn Vs. State of Assam and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-24-1986
Lahiri, C.J. 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution directed against the order dated 7-10-1986 passed by the Government of Assam rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to extend the term of Sand Mahal No. 2 under Doomdooma Division settled with the petitioner under the Assam Sale of Forest Produce (Coupes and Mahals) Rules, 1977 for short 'the Rules.' 2. We have heard Mr. A. C. Borbora, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also heard Mr. P. Prasad, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam. 3. The factual matrix may be summed up as follows : In pursuance to notice calling for tenders for sale of Sand Mahal No. 2 under Doomdooma Division for the year 1982-84 the petitioner submitted his tender and offeredRs. 3,01,593.00. His tender was accepted and the Sand Mahal was settled with him for a set settlement period commencing from June 16, 1984 to June 15, 1986. The petitioner operated the sand mahal for the entire period. However, before the expiry of...
Kamakhya Prasad Malaho Vs. Digendra Purkayastha and ors.
Court: Guwahati
Decided on: Nov-03-1986
B.L. Hansaria, J.1. This is a petition by respondent No. 1 the returned candidate. His contention is that the averments made in Paras 10 to 14 and 16 to 28 of the election petition are devoid of material facts and, particulars and so they cannot form the basis of any triable issue. It has, therefore, been prayed to strike off these paragraphs.2. Inspiration to file this petition has been drawn mainly from Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi, AIR 1986 SC 1253, wherein it has been held that an election petition can be and must be dismissed under the provisions of the Civil P. C. if the mandatory: requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short the Act), to incorporate the material, facts and particular relating to alleged corrupt practice are not complied with. Though Azhar (sic) there is no dispute that the ratio would apply to those averments in the election petition which seek to make out a case for setting aside an election on a ground other th...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›