Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998CriLJ4070
S.S. Mohammed Quadri, J.1. Leave is granted.2. In these appeals, filed by the State of Karnataka against the common judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 2nd July, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 16857 of 1993 and Criminal Petition No. 1155 of 1993, only that part of the judgment is assailed; which deals with the interpretation of 'action' as defined in Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the K. L. Act').3. To appreciate the contentions of Mr. K.R. Nagaraja, the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be necessary to icier to the facts giving rise to these appeals. On 17-12-92, an unsigned representation containing allegations against certain Government officers including the respondent, Kampaiah, an IPS Officer, who was working as Deputy Commissioner of Police, East, Bangalore, during the relevant period, was forwarded by the Under Secretary to the Governor of Karnataka to the Registrar, Lokayukta for taking necessary action. The Upa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VAD(SC)300; AIR1998SC3047; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)435; 1998CriLJ4070; 1998(3)Crimes77(SC); JT1998(5)SC181; 1998(4)SCALE290; (1998)6SCC103; [1998]3SCR910; 1999(2)SLJ116(SC)
ORDERQuadri, J. 1. Leave is granted. 2. In these appeals, filed by the State of Karnataka against the common judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 2nd July, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 16857 of 1993 and Criminal Petition No. 1155 of 1993, only that part of the judgment is assailed, which deals with the interpretation of 'action' as defined in Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the K.L. Act').3. To appreciate the contentions of Mr. K.R. Nagaraja, the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be necessary to refer to the facts giving rise to these appeals. On 17.12.92, an unsigned representation containing allegations against certain government officers including the respondent, Kempaiah, an IPS Officer, who was working as Deputy Commissioner of Police, East, Bangalore, during the relevant period , was forwarded by the Under Secretary to the Governor of Karnataka to the Registrar, Lokayukta for taking necessary action. The Upalokayuk...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.(C) No.25237/2010 Abhay Singh ....PETITIONER versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENTS with SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C) No.23984/2010 Abhay Singh ....PETITIONER versus Union of India and another ....RESPONDENTS ORDER G.S. SINGHVI, J.One of the several questions of public and constitutional importance raised by Shri Harish Salve, learned senior counsel, who initially appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the special leave petitions filed against order dated 21.8.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No.15440 of 1998 quashing the withdrawal of Z Grade Security provided to Respondent No.6-Pramod Tiwari, but later on assumed the role of an Amicus, is whether the Constitution contemplates categorization of citizens into two groups and whether the entitlement to use signs and symbols of authority, such as lights of different colours including red l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2002CriLJ4785
ORDERA.V. Srinivasa Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of the order passed by respondent No. 3 in No. COMPT/ LOK/ BCD-127/99-2000 dated 21st May, 2001, produced as Annexure-A.2. The petitioner is a Government Servant working as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Kolar District. Formerly, he was working as the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore District (Urban), Bangalore. While he was working as the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Bangalore District (Urban), Bangalore a complaint was lodged by the fourth respondent to the Inspector General of Police attached to Lokayuktha alleging that the petitioner demanded Rs. 20.000/- by way of illegal gratification for reducing the excise duty to Rs. 44.000/- from the original levy of Rs. 91,389/-. The fourth respondent taking exception to the demand approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Police Wing, Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Station and lodg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE21T DAY OF JUNE, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI WRIT PETITION NO.4260 OF2022(S-KSAT) BETWEEN:1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA , BENGALURU - 560 001.2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. ... PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI, HCGP) AND:1. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA M R., S/O. LATE M.G. RANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT62YEARS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ON DEPUTATION), MYSORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, MYSORE-570 001.2. THE COMMISSIONER, BHRUTH MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002. 23. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560 001.4. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-8, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, M.S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAY...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR3474; (1987)ILLJ300Kant
ORDERBopanna, J.1. The validity of the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) read with Rule 59 of the Rules framed by the State Government under the Act entered into between the fourth Respondent-Management of Motor Industries Co. Ltd., (in short the Management) and the MICO Employees Association purporting to be represented by its President - fifth respondent, viz., F. M. Khan, Member of Parliament, is challenged by petitioners 1 to 6, who are the office bearers of the MICO Employees' Association (in short the Association) represented by its General Secretary, the President, Assistant Secretary, the Executive Committee Member, the Treasurer and a Committee Member respectively.2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the duly elected office-bearers of the Association and they had submitted a charter of demands to the Management for the revision of wags-structure, enhancement of dearness allowance and for providing transport facili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC722; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)139; 1996CriLJ1127; 1995(6)SCALE674; (1996)1SCC542; [1995]Supp5SCR812
ORDERB.N. Kirpal, J.1. These are appeals by special leave granted against the Judgment of a Single Judge of Bombay High Court in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) and Article 227 of the 'Constitution of India whereby the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which were pending against the respondent herein before the Special Judge at Greater Bombay, were quashed.2. The respondent had joined the police force as a P.S.I. Cadet on 1.6.1966 and after completion of his training, he was posted as police Sub-Inspector in the Police force in 1968. He was promoted to the post of Police Sub-Inspector in September, 1974 and in August, 1981, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police. It was the case of the respondent that he had held various important assignments and that his record was unblemished.3. It appears that one A.C.P. R.B. Kolekar of 'Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bombay on 1....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHI Cr.M.P.No.2323of2015 1.AbhishekKumar,S/oDr.K.M.Prasad 2.RashmiKumari,D/oDr.K.M.Prasad 3.MukeshKumar,S/oDr.K.M.Prasad,AllR/oAshokNagar,PO AshokNagar,PSArgora,Ranchi............ Petitioners Versus 1.TheStateofJharkhandthroughDirectorateofEnforcement, 2.TheEnforcementOfficer,EnforcementDirectorate,KolkataZonal Office,Kolkata............... Opp.Parties ....... Coram:TheHon'bleMr.JusticeR.R.Prasad ....... ForthePetitioners :Mr.AnilKumar,Sr.Advocate FortheE.D. :Mr.A.K.Das,Advocate ........ ORDER C.A.V.On22/01/2016 Deliveredon04/02/2016 06/04.02.2016 This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 31/05/2002,passedinComplaintCaseNo.C.III85of2002,bythethen SpecialJudge,CBI,Ranchi,wherebyandwhereunderthecognizanceofthe offencespunishableunderSection56readwithSection49(3)and(4)ofthe Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, has been taken against the petitionersforcontraventionoftheprovisionascontainedinSection9(1)(i)(a) and9(b)(i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2013(1)SCALE7; 2013(1)SCJ1; 2013(1)KLT46(SN); AIR2013SCW671; AIR2013SC693
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgments and orders of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 12632 of 2011, dated 10.10.2011 and 18.1.2012.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are as under:A. The legislature of Gujarat enacted the Gujarat Lokayukta Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Act, 1986’), which provided for the appointment of a Lokayukta, who must be a retired Judge of the High Court. The said statute, was given effect to, and various Lokayuktas were appointed over time, by following the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1986, for the said purpose, i.e., the Chief Minister of Gujarat, upon consultation with the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, and the Leader of Opposition in the House, would make a recommendation to the Governor, on the basis of which, the Governor would then issue requisite letters of appointment.B. The post of the Lokayukta became vacant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgments and orders of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 12632 of 2011, dated 10.10.2011 and 18.1.2012.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are as under:A. The legislature of Gujarat enacted the Gujarat Lokayukta Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Act, 1986’), which provided for the appointment of a Lokayukta, who must be a retired Judge of the High Court. The said statute, was given effect to, and various Lokayuktas were appointed over time, by following the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1986, for the said purpose, i.e., the Chief Minister of Gujarat, upon consultation with the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, and the Leader of Opposition in the House, would make a recommendation to the Governor, on the basis of which, the Governor would then issue requisite letters of appointment.B. The post of the Lokayukta became vacant...
Tag this Judgment!