Court : Delhi
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the common order dated 16.02.2012, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OAs No. 3693/2010, 1200/2011 and 2468/2011 have filed these writ petitions. Some of the petitioners are those who have been selected for the post of Senior Lecturer with the State Council of Education Research and Training (SCERT)/District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), pursuant to the selection by the Committee, appointed under the relevant Recruitment Rules of SCERT. In some petitions, the petitioners are the Government of NCT of Delhi as also the SCERT. It is also understood that DIET is a part of SCERT. Consequently, indirectly DIET is also a petitioner in these writ petitions. Some of the respondents are those who were not selected and who had filed the said OAs. 2. The sole question which was there before the Tribunal was with regard to the composition of the Selection Committee which co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.400 OF2010K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY & ANR. .Petitioners Versus STATE OF TAMILNADU & ORS. ..Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus to initiate an independent investigation preferably by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or Special Investigation Team (SIT) into the incident of alleged beating of students of Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai on 12.11.2008 by some miscreants so that criminal proceedings could be initiated against the guilty police personnel as well as the other persons responsible for the said incident.2. Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:- A group of students of Dr. Ambedkar Law College, Chennai belonging to Thevar Community is said to have pasted posters and pamphlets inside the college premises in connection with the birthday celebrations of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8341/2017 TALLURI SRINIVAS Reserved on:12. h January, 2018 Date of Decision:12. h March, 2018 ......Petitioner Through Mr. A.N. Haksar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.R. Sudhinder, Ms. Prerna Amitabh and Mr.Anurag Tripathi, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS & ANR. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Vijay Joshi, Sr. Panel Counsel for Respondent No.1. Ms. Pooja M. Saigal, Adv. for Respondent No.2. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, Waize Ali Noor, Mr. Prateek Dhanda and Mr. Saeed Qadri, Advocates for Respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR % SANJIV KHANNA, J.Talluri Srinivas, a chartered accountant, by the present writ petition impugns and seeks quashing of the order dated 26th July, 2017 passed by the Appellate Authority, rejecting his plea and contention of lack of quorum as his appeal was being heard by four (4) members on recusal of one of the appointed members.... Petitioner s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Ashok Bhushan, CJ. 1. These writ appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 24.06.2013 passed in four writ petitions. W.A. No.720 of 2014 arises out of W.P.(C) No.25045 of 2006, W.A. No. 728 of 2014 arises out of W.P.(C) No. 36204 of 2001, W.A. No. 756 of 2014 arises out of W.P.(C) No.35084 of 2001 and W.A. No.775 of 2014 arises out of W.P.(C) No. 36197 of 2001. 2. The writ petitioners are the respondents in the appeals. Parties shall be referred to as described in the writ petition. W.A. No.720 of 2014 is being treated as the leading case and facts giving rise to the writ appeal shall suffice in deciding the issues raised in all the appeals. 3. The petitioners who had filed the writ petition were appointed as members of Ombudsman as per Section 271G(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 by Notification dated 29.05.2000. In all, 7 persons were appointed as members of the Ombudsman. All the petitioners joined their offices as members of Ombudsman on 30.05.2000. The provision provid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
(Ghulam Mohammed) 1. This writ petition is instituted for declaring Section 3(2)(a) and Section 21(2)(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, in so far as they restrict the choice of appointment for the offices of Chairperson of National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commissions respectively to a retired Chief Justice of India and retired Chief Justice of High Court respectively as arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires Constitution of India and further to set-aside the appointment of the fourth respondent as Chairperson of the Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission, notified through G.O.M.S.No.622 General Administration Department (Human Rights Commission) dated 23.11.2011. 2. The writ petitioner is a respected senior member of the Bar. With a public spirit for securing broader choice for consideration for offices of Chairpersons of the National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commissions, he has instituted the present writ petition. 3. Since ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.32893 OF 201.22-03-2012 S. Satyam Reddy Union of India, Rep by its Secretary, Law and Justice,New Delhi and 3 others Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S. SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI PONNAM ASHOK GOUD - ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR GAD Gist: Head Note: CITATIONS: ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is instituted for declaring Section 3(2)(a) and Section 21(2)(a) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, in so far as they restrict the choice of appointment for the offices of Chairperson of National Human Rights Commission and State Human Rights Commissions respectively to a retired Chief Justice of India and retired Chief Justice of High Court respectively as arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires Constitution of India and further to set- aside the appointment of the fourth respondent as Chairperson of the Andhra Pra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is focused animadverting upon the judgment and order dated 21.4.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27315 of 2008, by which the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging the Notification dated 28.5.2008, by which on the date of reconstitution of the U.P. State Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as `Commission'), the appellant was declared to have ceased to hold the office as a Member of the said Commission.3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts necessary and germane to the disposal of this appeal run as under: (A) Appellant entered the U.P. Judicial Services as Munsiff in the year 1972 and was promoted to the post of Additional District Judge in the year 1985 and further promoted to the post of District Judge w.e.f. 14.1.2003.(B) The appellant while working as a Principal Secretary and Legal Remembrancer, Government of U.P., was appointed as a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.104 OF2015ANOOP BARANWAL PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No.1043 OF2017WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO.569 OF2021AND WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO.998 OF2022JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.INDEX A. THE CASES: THE FOUR WRIT PETITIONS ......................................................................................... 3 B. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS; SHRI GOPAL SANKARANARAYANAN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL IN WRIT PETITION (C) No.1043 OF2017............................................................................... 7 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF SHRI PRASHANT BHUSHAN, LEARNED COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.104 OF2015 .................................................................... 11 D. SUBMISSIONS BY SHRI JAYA THAKUR, PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.998 OF202216 E. SUBMISSIONS OF SHRI KALEESWARAM RAJ, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CWP No.1021 o1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1021 of 2013 Date of Decision :25. 07.2013 Amandeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr.G.L.Sadana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Bajwa, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr.H.S.Gill, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Abhaypal Singh Gill, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C.J.(ORAL) The petitioner has filed the present petition styled as a Public Interest Litigation, though in fact he seeks to question the appointment of Sh. L.R.Roojam, respondent No.2 as Member of the Punjab State Human Rights Commission on the ground that he did not meet the requirement of requisite experience of seven years as a District Judge of the State of Punjab on the date of his appointment as per the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (herein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRL.M.P. NO.16086 OF1997IN CRL.M.P. NO.4201 OF1997Dilip K. Basu Petitioner Versus State of West Bengal & Ors. Respondents WITH CRL.M.P. NO.4201 OF1997 4105 OF1999 2600 OF2000 2601 OF2000 480 OF2001 3965, 10385 OF2002 12704 OF2001 19694 OF2010IN CRL.M.P. No.4201 OF1997 CRL.M.P. No.13566 OF2011IN CRL.M.P. No.16086 OF1997IN CRL.M.P. No.4201 OF1997 CRL.M.P. No.15490 OF2014& 15492 OF2014IN WRIT PETITION (CRL.)No.539 OF1986JUDGMENT T.S. THAKUR, J.1. In D.K. Basu etc. v. State of West Bengal etc.[1]. [D.K. Basu (1)]. this Court lamented the growing incidence of torture and deaths in police custody. This Court noted that although violation of one or the other of the human rights has been the subject matter of several Conventions and Declarations and although commitments have been made to eliminate the scourge of custodial torture yet gruesome incidents of such torture continue unabated. The court described custodial tortur...
Tag this Judgment!