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 : 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 : Delhi
$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:8. h July, 2019 + W.P.(C) 6886/2019 & CM APPL. 28645/2019 MANMOHAN SINGH NARULA & ANR ........ Petitioners Through: Mr. Manmohan Singh Narula versus SPEAKER, LOK SABHA Through: None ..... Respondent CORAM:-"HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MR JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR % D.N.PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL) JUDGMENT0807.2019 1. This writ petition has been preferred for the following prayers: (i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ to the respondents for issuing directions, orders or to frame a policy for appointment of Leader of Opposition of Lok Sabha; (ii) Or to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. For such act of kindness, the petitioners shall as in duty bound, ever pray. 2. Having heard the petitioner in person and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner is in search W.P.(C) 6886/...
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 : 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!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 : 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 : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1455; [2001(89)FLR834]; JT2001(4)SC1; 2001(2)SCALE548; (2001)4SCC31; [2001]2SCR567; 2001(2)SCT342(SC); 2001(1)LC770(SC); (2001)3UPLBEC2016
Pattanaik, J. 1. This petition under Article 32 is by the retired Chief Justice of High Court of Kerala. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been illegally denied of certain monetary benefit when he served as a Member of the National Human Rights Commission. It is the case of the petitioner that after retiring as the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court on 11th June, 1991, he was appointed as Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal on 5.12.1991. On his retirement from the Tribunal he was appointed as a Member of the National Human Rights Commission on 14.9.94 and continued there till he attained the age of 70 years. While he was continuing as a Member of the National Human Rights Commission he was not granted full salary, which he was entitled to under the relevant Rules, and on the other hand deductions were made under the Proviso to Rule 3 of the Rules. The contention of the petitioner is that the said Proviso will have no application. The further grievance of th...
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!