Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1989MP254; 1989MPLJ121
Y.B. Suryavanshi, J. 1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from treating them as Foreign Nationals of Bangladesh/or their stay in India as unauthorised, and for a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking them into custody for deporting them outside India. 2. (i) Many facts are undisputed. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are, respectively, the mother and younger brother of one Narayan Chandra Pal (for short, called Pal) who came to India in 1962 and had been residing at village Punji, Gram Panchayat Chopna, in District Betul. In December 1971, war broke out between India and Pakistan. East Bengal was then part of Pakistan. Lacs of Hindu refugees from East Bengal came to India. The war culminated in the creation of a new State, now known as 'Bangla Desh'. These two petitioners also came to India as 'refugees'. The Government of India on humanitarian considerati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1950MP60; 1950CriLJ1352
ORDERKaul, C.J.1. Anant Bhaskar Lagu (who is-said to be a resident of Indore and Ujjain as he divides his time between the two please made the present application Under Section 491, Criminal P. 0, By a subsequent application it was prayed on his behalf that it might be treated as an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The material facts are as follows: On lab April 1949, the District Magistrate, Indore, passed an order under Madhya Bharat Maintenance of Public Order Act, samvat 2005, 3.3 (1) that Lagu be detained for a period of three months. It is-alleged that in enforcement of this order the petitioner waa arrested but he escaped from police custody. On 3rd December 1949, a constable saw him in Indore distributing some leaflets as part of propaganda for the communist party an association which was- declared unlawful in Indore. He was ultimately arrested in Indore on the night between 14th and 15th December 1949. On 15th December 1949, the District Magistrate Indore p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1951CriLJ1239
ORDERSathaye, J.C.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of a direction or order or a writ in the nature of mandamus or prohibition or for grant of any other relief, to safeguard his fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(d) & (e) of the Constitution.2. The petitioner was arrested at Bhopal, on 6-4-1950 & detained under the Preventive Detention Act of i960 for three months by the order of the Chief Commissioner & the detention was extended for another three months. But on 6-10-1850, when his application under Article 226 of the Constitution was pending in the Judicial Commissioner's Court, Bhopal, he was released, his term having expired, but was externed from the whole of Bhopal State, an order under Section 4 (1)(d), Bhopal State Public Safety Act of 1947 read with S. S. Bhopal Administration Order, 1945 passed by the Chief Commissioner, Bhopal. It is this order that is now challenged as encroaching on the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1954CriLJ602
ORDERSathaye, J.C.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for issue of (a) a writ in the nature of habeas corpus to the State directing it to produce the person of the petitioner's brother Izhar Ahmed Khan alleged to have been illegally arrested and detained and to release him from custody; (b) a writ of certiorari declaring the order of arrest and detention to be improper, illegal, inoperative and void and (c) to issue such orders or directions as may be required for the enforcement of Izhar Ahmed Khan's fundamental rights under the Constitution.2. The petitioner alleges that Izhar Ahmed, who is his brother, is a citizen of India, on various grounds stated in paras. (4) to (14) of the petition viz., that he was born at Bhopal and finished his education here; that his father was born at Merrut in Uttar Pradesh and died in Bhopal; that his mother was also born at the same place and was a teacher in the Girls' School at Bhopal and resides here; that Izhar Ahmed's ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP292
Naik, J.1. This is an appeal against the acquittal of the accused respondent Indarsingh of what was alleged by the prosecution to be an offence under Section 153 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts found by the Courts below which we see no reason to doubt, are as follows: There was a flag hoisting ceremony at the Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, On 15-8-1955 when Shri Keshwani, Superintendent, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, hoisted the National Flag. Indarsingh was present at the said ceremony. There was also a gathering of about 250-300 persons to witness the ceremony. After the ceremony was over and the gathering was about to disperse, the accused respondent came and unfastened the string of the National Flag. The flag came down and the accused-respondent started trampling over it. Deolalikar (P.W. 1) saw this. He immediately went over to the place and rehoisted the flag. He then asked the accused-respondent why he had brought the flag down. The accused-respondent replied that he had alrea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1959MP387; 1959CriLJ1337
Newaskar, J. 1. These appeals Nos. 111 to 123 of 1958 are preferred by the State Government under Section 417 of the Cr. P. C. against the orders of acquittal recorded by the Additional District Magistrate, Mandsaur. The accused in all these cases were prosecuted for an offence under Section 3(2)(c) and 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, read with Foreigners Laws Amendment Act, 1957.2. Questions involved in all these cases are almost common but for slight variation as to facts. It is therefore considered proper to deal with them together and to dispose them of by this judgment.3. In order to facilitate consideration of the principal question involved in these cases it is considered convenient to deal with the case of Mumtazali referable to Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 1958 and the conclusions arrived at on the basis of contentions raised on either side will be applied to the rest of the cases,4. The case against Mumtazali son of Faizali at present residing in Mandsaur is (hat he came to Man...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1960MP381
Krishnan, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a couple who came to India on a Pakistani passport (which was visa-ed) for three months ending on 23-10-1954. Either they were successful, in concealing themselves, or the authorities forgot about them for nearly five years, but on 6-9-1959, they were served with notices by the Civil and Registration Authority of District Ujjain, to show cause why they should not be deported to Pakistan presumbly under the Foreigners Act of 1946, as amended in 1957. We have the copy of notice served on the wife, and the copy of the cause shown by the husband; but we are told by Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners that the other notice and the other cause are identical. It is urged that no order has yet been made; but they fear that it would be a final order for deportation, as indeed has been made in a number of similar cases; and that at that stage it will be physically impossible for them to seek the assist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP110; 1961CriLJ516
Shrivastava, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahasamund, on 11-4-1958 ordering the petitioner to leave India on the ground that he is a Pakistan citizen and has overstayed the period of his visa. Ten other similar petitions involving commonquestions of law were heard along with this petition. They are: S. No.Case No.Filed by.1.Misc. Pet. No. 290/1958Mohammad Murtaza Khan2.Misc. Pet. No. 61/1959Issab alias Yusuf3.Civil Misc. Pet. No. 39/1958Akbarkhan Alam Khan4.Civil Misc. Pet. No. 59/1958Maujmabibi & others5.Misc. Pet. No. 139/1957Kalloo s/o Noor Mohd.6.Misc. Pet. No. 206/1957Gulam Rasool7.Misc. Pet. No. 6/1958Mohammd Yusuf8.Misc. Pet. No. 168/1958Mohammad Abbas9.Misc. Pet. No. 70/1959Shabrati s/o Mangoo10.Misc. Pet. No. 371/1958Ghulam Mahmmmod KhanAll these petitions, except S. No. 3, are directed against the orders of the District Superintendent of Police or the Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP348; 1962MPLJ692
Bhargava, J.1. This first appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against whom and Maharaja Ramanul Saran Singh Deo, a suit was brought by the plaintiffs as owners of the joint family firm 'Hiralal and Brothers' functioning at Ambikapur for the recovery of Rs. 87,200/- on the basis of a promissory-note, dated 27-9-1947, for Rs. 80,000/- carrying interest at the rate of 3 per cent. per annum. The trial Court passed a decree for the entire amount claimed in the suit against the State of Madhya Pradesh and discharged defendant No. 2 who was the Ruler of Sarguja Stale from the obligation to pay the amount of the promissory-note holding that the pro-note was executed by defendant No. 2 in connection with a liability which was the liability of the Sarguja State and not his individual liability. The State of Madhya Pradesh being dissatisfied with this judgment and decree has preferred this first appeal.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that in the year 1935 or thereabout, Hiralal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1964MP272; 1965MPLJ329
ORDER1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Fazaldad s/o Sardarkhan challenges the validity of the order dated 4-4-1960 passed by the State Government under Sub-clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Foreigners Act No. 21 of 1946.2. The petitioner claims to have been a resident of village Fabra in District Vidisha in the State of Madhya Pradesh for the last 40 years. He owns considerable immovable property there. The petitioner alleges that he had gone to Chak. Shekhu District Gujrat (Pakistan) in July, 1948 on a temporary visit in order to participate in a marriage and to bring back his children from there. For reasons beyond his control the petitioner had to stay in Pakistan till 22-10-1953. The permit system having been introduced in October, 1948 no one from Pakistan was allowed to come back to India without a permit. The petitioner, therefore, entered India on the strength of a Pakistan passport issued by the Government of Pak...
Tag this Judgment!