Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2011SC1267
1. The two writ petitions filed in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India give rise to a substantial question of law and of public importance as to the legality of the appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas (respondent No. 2 in W.P.(C) No. 348 of 2010) as Central Vigilance Commissioner under Section 4(1) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 ("2003 Act" for short). 2. Government is not accountable to the courts in respect of policy decisions. However, they are accountable for the legality of such decisions. While deciding this case, we must keep in mind the difference between legality and merit as also between judicial review and merit review. On 3rd September, 2010, the High Powered Committee ("HPC" for short), duly constituted under the proviso to Section 4(1) of the 2003 Act, had recommended the name of Shri P.J. Thomas for appointment to the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner. The validity of this recommendation falls for judicial scrutiny in this case. If a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER 1. By this order we are disposing of the prayer made by the appellants for appointment of a group of independent persons to assist the Court in monitoring the investigation being carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax Department in '2G case'. 2.The writ petition filed by the appellants before the Delhi High Court for ordering an investigation by the CBI or a Special Investigation Team into what was termed as '2G Spectrum Scam' for unearthing the role of respondent no. 5 Shri A. Raja, the then Union Minister, Department of Telecommunications, senior officers of the department, middlemen, businessmen and others was dismissed by the Delhi High Court vide order dated 25.5.2010. 3. The appellants challenged the order of the Delhi High Court in SLP(C) No. 24873/2010. By a detailed order dated 16.12.2010, this Court granted leave and issued the following directions: (i) CBI shall conduct thorough investigation into variou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary notification dated 21.5.2008 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act for the Layout called Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout, issued by second and third respondent in respect of schedule property vide Annexure-A and etc; This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the preliminary notification dated 21.5.2008 issued under Section 17(1) and (3) of the BDA Act 1976, vide Annexure-C to the writ petition and also the final notification dated 18.2.2010 vide Annexure-D of the writ petition, issued by the first respondent and etc; This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification at Annexure-E dated 21.5.2008 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 21.5.2008, issued under Section 17(1) and (3) and final notification issued under Section 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DATED THIS THE11H DAY OF JULY, 2014 BANGALORE BEFORE: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION No.32186 OF2010(LA-BDA) CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION Nos.32187/2010 & 34096-34098 OF2010WRIT PETITION No.37886 OF2012WRIT PETITION No.40958 OF2012WRIT PETITION No.43714 OF2012WRIT PETITION Nos.14140-147 OF2010WRIT PETITION Nos.34413-34423 OF2011WRIT PETITION Nos.35445-48 OF2011WRIT PETITION No.33858 & 34282 OF2011WRIT PETITION No.34191 OF2011WRIT PETITION No.22087-102 OF2012WRIT PETITION No.17461 OF2010WRIT PETITION No.40115 OF2010WRIT PETITION Nos.40110-112 OF2010WRIT PETITION No.22375 OF2011WRIT PETITION No.3107 OF2012WRIT PETITION No.19767 OF2010WRIT PETITION No.1753 OF2013WRIT PETITION Nos.17369 OF2010WRIT PETITION Nos.35629 OF2010WRIT PETITION No.35628 OF2010WRIT PETITION Nos.35625-627 OF2010WRIT PETITION No.37316-317 OF2012WRIT PETITION No.42138 OF2012WRIT PETITION Nos.10650-653 OF20112 WRIT PETITION Nos.9830-37 OF2010WRIT PETITION No.328...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(3)ALT666
Y. Bhaskar Rao, J.1. These two writ petitions give rise to the far-reaching question, whether the Lokayukta has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary verification into matters touching the All India Service officers. By virtue of Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta & Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act 11/83'), the Institution of Lokayukta is established in the State with the prime object of meeting the of expressed public outcry against the prevalence of corruption, the existence of wide spread inefficiency and the unresponsiveness of the administration to the popular needs and to provide a machinery in order to examine public complaints and shift the genuine from the false or the untenable so that the administrative failures and achievements could be publicly viewed in their correct perspective.2. It is not disputed that the term 'preliminary verification' as used in the Act 11/83 is similar to the expression 'investigation' in the code of Criminal Procedure and the term 'investigation' i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1977Mad192
1. This petition is filed by Mr. Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Notification No. SO-74(E) dated 3-2-1976, issued by the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms, Government of India, under S. 3 of the Commissions of Enquiry Act 1952, and quash the same. The affidavit filed in support of this petition, after setting out the history of the Government of Tamil Nadu and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which was running the Government from 1967 upto 31st January 1976, refers to the proclamation issued by the President of India on 31-1-1976 under Art. 356 of the Constitution of India assuming to himself the functions of the Government of the State of Tamil Nadu and the powers of the Government of the State, suspending the provisions of the Constitution relating to the Council of Ministers in the State and dissolving the Legislative Assembly. The Proclamation im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1957SC458; 1957(0)BLJR502; 1957CriLJ575; (1958)IILLJ645SC
Govinda Menon, J. 1. Though these three appeals have been filed against the decisions of different courts and are not connected either as regards community of purpose or the identity of the accused they have been heard together, because the points of law raised in them are identical and the arguments of counsel have proceeded on common lines. Hence a common judgment dealing with the legal aspect would be apt in the circumstances. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1954 has been preferred by Om Prakash Gupta against the dismissal of his Revision Petition by the High Court of Allahabad, thereby affirming the appellate decision of the Sessions Judge of Kumaun who in his turn maintained the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500 passed on the appellant by the Special 1st Class Magistrate of Nainital on April 30, 1953, under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. This appellant was a clerk in the Electric Department of Haldwani Municipal Board and the charge against h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the notifications dated 15.11.2006 issued by third respondent vide Annexure-N and notification dated 29.6.2007 vide Annexure-0 respectively, in respect of the petitioners land situated in 11/1 of Billishivale village, site bearing No.948, house list khatha No. 183, Asha Township 6th 'A' Cross, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore, measuring East to West 112 feet, North to South 80 feet in all measuring 8960 sq. ft. and bounded on the east by: 6th Cross Road, west by : Private Property, North by. site No.947, south by: site no.949. This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the preliminary notification issued by the second respondent, dated 15.11.2006, and published in the Gazette dated 16.11.2006, so far it relates to formation of Peripheral Ring Road with providing truck terminals, BMTC Depot, which is produced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE22d DAY OF JULY2014BEFORE: THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY WRIT PETITION No.4550 OF2008(LA-BDA) CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION No.16120 OF2007(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.18037 OF2007(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION Nos.49622-49721 OF2012(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.45444 OF2012(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.12340 OF2008(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.6199 OF2008(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.566 OF2008(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.726 OF2008(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.11651 OF2008(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.20340 OF2007(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.19293 OF2007(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.19651 OF2007(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.9975 OF2008(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.10126 OF2010(BDA) WRIT PETITION No.10071 OF2007(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.10098 OF2007(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.19984 OF2007(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.13321 OF2008(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.10548 OF2008(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION No.400 OF2009(LA-BDA) WRIT PETITION Nos.19148-19152 & 25423-25425 OF2009LA-BDA) 2 WRIT PE...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No._______OF2022ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL) No.1568 OF2022VIJAY RAJMOHAN ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.J.1. Leave Granted.2. Two important questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. The first question is whether an order of the Appointing Authority granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19881, would be rendered illegal on the ground of acting as per dictation if it consults the Central Vigilance Commission for its decision. The second question is whether the period of three months (extendable 1 hereinafter referred to as the PC Act. Page 1 of 30 by one more month for legal consultation2) for the Appointing Authority to decide upon a request for sanction is mandatory or not. The further question i...
Tag this Judgment!