Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(2)ALLMR649; 2008(2)BomCR575; (2008)110BOMLR512; 2008(4)MhLj553
J.N. Patel, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. We propose to dispose of the three petitions by a common judgment and order as it raises common issues, the facts are not much disputed and it raises identical questions for decision. 3. The State of Maharashtra has impugned the orders passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 512 of 1994 filed by Mr. Vinayak Raosaheb Patil, Ex. Inspector of Police and Original Application No. 590 of 1994 filed by Mr. Suhas P. Kalamkar, Ex. Inspector of Police which has been disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 3rd December 1997. The third one relates to an order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 280 of 1996 filed by Ashok Hari Khedkar, Ex.Inspector of Police which came to be disposed of by a judgment and order dated 27th March 1997. 4. The then Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, in the case of all the three Police Officers, who were at the relevant tim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)85BOMLR115; 1983MhLJ317
D.P. Madon, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by Mrs. Justice Sujata Manohar sitting singly on the Original Side rejecting the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellant. The appellant was an unarmed police constable in the Bombay City Police Force. By an order dated August 16, 1982 passed by the Governor of Maharashtra in exercise of the powers vested in him under Clause (c) of the second proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 read with Article 310 of the Constitution of India the appellant was dismissed from service with immediate effect. The appellant was arrested on August 18, 1982 at about 1 a.m. and detained under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On the same day, the said order of dismissal was served upon him. An application was presented on August 18, 1982 to the Metropolitan Magistrate, 23rd Court, Esplanade, by the Inspector of Police, Detection of Crime Branch, C.I.D., Bombay, requesting that the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR1
R.M. Kantawala, C.J.1. This petition relates to a very important question regarding basic human natural rights to hold a peaceful assembly of some lawyers who are invited by individual invitations to discuss civil liberties and the rule of law while the proclamation of emergency is in operation. On December 3, 1971 the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred upon under Article 352(1) of the Constitution of India by a proclamation of emergency declared that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by external aggression. While this proclamation of emergency was in operation, on June 25, 1975 by another proclamation of emergency issued under Article 352(1) of the Constitution the President of India declared that a grave emergency existed whereby the security of India was threatened by internal disturbance. After the proclamation of emergency declared by reason of danger to internal security, on June 27, 1975, the Commissioner of Police, Greate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.576 OF2016INDIAN HOTEL AND RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION (AHAR) & ANR. .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) W I T H WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.24 OF2017A N D WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.119 OF2017JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.This batch of three Writ Petitions was heard together and is being disposed of by this Common Judgment as similar issues and prayers are raised in all these petitions.2) The instant writ petitions have been preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging certain provisions of the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurant and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein) Act, 2016 (hereinafter 2 referred to as the Act) and also the Rules framed there under being the Maharashtra Prohibition of Obscene Dance in Hotels, Restaurant and Bar Rooms and Protection of Dignity of Women (Working therein)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
G.S. Patel, J. 1. Since June 2013, we have had to deal with a quite extraordinary number of petitions challenging appellate orders under Section 60 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 in externment proceedings. Those appellate orders have been passed by one Mr. Vineet Agarwal, the 2nd Respondent in this case. In VinayakDynaneshwar Mainkar v State of Maharashtra and Ors we had occasion to criticize Mr. Agarwal for his approach in these matters (Cri WP No.3257 of 2013, judgment dated 6th September 2013). We found it formulaic and unthinking. There was little or no attention to facts. Settled law was ignored. It seemed to us that his orders were issued mechanically, using standardized phrasing. Since the time of that order, we have encountered other cases, too (Cri WP No. 2807 of 2013; Cri WP No. 2744 of 2013; Cri WP No. 3035 of 2013; Cri WP No. 3207 of 2013). In fairness to Mr. Agarwal, his appellate orders in these cases were all before our decision in Mainkar, as is the appellate order in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
1. This is an application preferred under Sec.439 of the Code of Criminal ["the Code" for short] by the applicant who has been arrested in connection with FIR bearing CR No. I-100 of 2002 registered with Naroda Police Station for the offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 332, 324, 325, 326, 295, 295A, 201, 395, 396, 397, 398, 435, 436, 427, 376, 120B, 186, 188, 153A[a][b] and 153[A-1] Part II of Indian Penal Code read with Sec. 135[1] of the Bombay Police Act.2. Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Mausam Yagnik, learned advocate for the applicant, submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the alleged commission of offence. The trial in the matter has commenced and out of 600 witnesses, 192 witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution. One witness, namely, Aminaben Abbasbhai Belim, in her statement dated 30.5.2008 has mentioned the name of the applicant as assistant of Mayaben Kodnani who accompanied her in w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR39; (1991)93BOMLR220
G.D. Kamat, J.1. The petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 to 6 are the employees of Mormugao Port Trust, the first respondent. Mormugao Port is a Major Port under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Under section 3 thereof the Central Government constitutes a Board of Trustees for that port consisting of a Chairman, a Deputy Chairman and not more than 19 persons.2. The petitioners were initially appointed as Clerks between the period 1964 to 1966 and promoted as Senior Clerks in 1972-1973. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were appointed as Clerks in the year 1979, respondent No. 5 in 1982 and respondent No. 6 in 1983 and subsequently promoted is Senior Clerks.The next promotion for a Senior Clerks is that of Accountant. According to the petitioners based on seniority and otherwise nothing adverse found, they are liable to be promoted as Accountants, as on 31st August, 1987, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 5th September, 1988 and respondent No. 6 ad-hoc basis on 28th October, 1988. It is now set out that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, petitions are taken up for final hearing. 2. In all these petitions, common question of fact and law is involved, therefore, all these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 3. By these petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 2nd/4th August 2014 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Thane and the order dated 6th September 2014 passed by the appellate authority, namely, the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra whereby the eating house licence, the public entertainment licence and the premises and performance licence in respect of the Petitioners' establishment are suspended for an indefinite period under the provisions of section 33(wa) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 read with Rule 222(2) of the Rules for Licencing and Controlling Places of Public Am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1. The question that is referred for our consideration is, as to "whether the order passed by the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, confirming the order passed by the externing authority under section 56 and 57 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 can be construed as an 'order' within the contemplation of explanation to Rule 18 of chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960". 2. In view of explanation to Rule 18 of The Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, the expression 'order', appearing in clauses 1 to 41 means an order passed by any judicial or quasi-judicial authority empowered to adjudicate under the above mentioned statute. Thus, it is essentially required to examine as to whether the order passed in an appeal by the State Government under section 60 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 is an order passed under quasi-judicial authority or whether it shall be construed as an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR221; 2009(111)BomLR869
Swatanter Kumar, C.J.1. Rule in both the Writ Petitions. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, Rule called out and heard finally at the admission stage itself.Facts2. The State of Maharashtra vide its order dated 29th February 2008 appointed Shri A N Roy, Petitioner in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 2528 of 2008 and Respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 2552 of 2008, as the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra State. This order of the State was challenged by Shri Suprakash Chakravarthy, Director General of Police, Commandant, General Home Guards & Director, Civil Defence, Maharashtra State, Mumbai by filing Original Application No. 389 of 2008 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai stating that he is an Officer from 1972 Batch of the Indian Police Service (IPS) and till date he has served in distinguished capacity in various ranks of the police force and other Departments including CID, Railways, Commissione...
Tag this Judgment!