Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Sep-25-1981
..... of natural justice, it has been held also affect the fundamental rights under articles 14 and 21 of the constitution. in ramanna v. international airport authority, air 1979 sc 1628, it has been ruled that violation of the principles of natural justice is to disregard the constitutional mandate under article 14 as also the judicially ..... administrative decision was mollified in binapani delskipping over a number of leading decision we find that the distinction was eroded in a. k. kraipak v. union of india, air 1970 sc 150, where the constitution bench observed (paras 13 & 20) : 'if the purpose of these rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of ..... health, public safety, public security etc. in such circumstances two competing forces run parallel side by side (1) the necessity of taking emergent or speedy action and, (2) the duty to act fairly. 'it is untenable hearsay.....to lock jaw the victim or act behind his back 6y tempting innovation of urgency unless the clearest case of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jul-06-1981
..... order made by the detaining authority had not been followed by service within 5 days as provided in the concerned statute (s. 7 (1) of the preventive detention act, 1950), of the grounds on which the order was made, the order must be deemed to have become invalid and subsequent detention of the appellant was regarded as unauthorised.9. ..... an evenly balanced uncertainty of the meaning of an expression invariably in favour of the detenu. however, in the instant case the meaning of the word balances with sufficient force of certainty in favour of the detenu. whether we use deductive logic or inductive logic, we find the meaning of the word 'communicate' to mean actual receipt of ..... constitution. it was urged by relying on state of punjab v. khemi ram, : [1970]2scr657 , which decision was followed in b. j. shelat v. state of gujarat, air 1978 sc 1109, that transmission of the grounds should be taken to be communication of the same. in khemi ram this question had arisen in the context of an order .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Aug-19-1981
..... framed rule 4 which prescribed a period of 30 days for preferring appeals under clause 10, letters patent. these rules are statutory rules and have the same binding force as an enactment of the legislature itself. we are of the opinion that the rules framed under clause 27, letters patent under the authority delegated to it by ..... the commencement of the constitution. the rule-making power of a high court, which existed at the commencement of the constitution can be exercised with much vigour and force after the commencement of the constitution. however, the rules made by the high court would cease to have effect if the appropriate legislature makes any law on the ..... the present case. 10. it is pertinent to note that while interpreting the provisions of section 116a(2) of 'the r. p. act'' the supreme court has held in vidyacharan shukla v. khubchand baghel, air 1964 sc 1099, (supra) that section 116-a(2) has providedfor appeals by fiction and equated them with appeals filed under the code .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Apr-03-1981
..... so much so, that the entire state of assam was declared a 'disturbed area' and the assam disturbed areas act as well as the armed forces (special powers) act had to be brought into operation. the skeleton police force were too meagre to keep traces of the persons indulging in unlawful activities throughout the length and breadth of the state. ..... detention was served on the detenu before he was released from jail. the learned counsel relics on labaram v. state of assam air 195l assam 43 : 1951-52 cri lj 434; hari das deka v. state air 1952 assam 175 : 1952 cri lj 1670 and rameshwar shaw v. district magistrate, burdwan : 1964crilj257 wherein the two assam decisions ..... were over.in ram singh v. state of delhi : [1951]2scr451 , the ground of detention was:in pursuance of section 7, preventive detention act, you are hereby informed that the grounds on which the detention order dated 22-8-1950 has been made against you are that your speeches generally in the past and particularly on ... august .....
Tag this Judgment!