Court : Guwahati
T. Nandkumar Singh, J.1. In the present case, the victim of dehumanizing assault and torture in the custody of protector of law in uniform, unfortunately, is a lawyer who fights and pleads law for the citizens of India for protection of their right and liberty guaranteed by and under the Constitution of India in the court of law. The instances of dehumanizing torture and assault in the custody of the guardian of law are ever increasing. Even a lawyer became the victim of torture and assault in the custody of law protector in uniform; it is unthinkable what would be the situation in the case of an ordinary citizen of India. The dehumanizing torture, assault and death in the custody which have assumed alarming proportion raise serious question about the credibility to the Rule of Law and administration of criminal systems. No doubt it is true that the cry for justice is so loud that it deafens ear of the peace loving citizens of India that they cannot live in a peaceful atmosphere and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T.N.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. R. Daniel, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. C. Komal, learned CGSC for respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned GA for the respondent No. 8.2. It is said that the petitioner is the only legal wife of late S. Paisho, who was a member of the VVF (Village Volunteer Force). Late Shri S. Paisho joined VVF in the year 1983 and later on promoted to the post of Sector Leader.3. On 11.3.1996 at about 3/4 a.m. the 20th Assam Rifles Post at Huishu Village, i.e. the petitioner's village was attacked by members of the NSCN (IM). On being attacked by the members of the NSCN (IM) at the 20th Assam Rifles Post at Huishu Village, the petitioner, her husband late S. Paisho along with members of their family members namely--(i) Smt. S. Kahaowon W/o (L.) S. Paisho (Petitioner)(ii) Miss S. Khachungla (daughter, 23 years,(iii) Miss S. Lean (daughter 20 years),(iv) Mr. S. Bijoy (son) 16 years.(v) Mr. S. Ningam (son) 14 years.and other villagers of Huishu village...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T.N.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, Mr. M. Hemchandra and Mr. Y. Nirmolchand, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned GA appearing on behalf of all the respondents.2. Since these writ petitions 5 (five) in numbers involve common questions of law and similar facts, these are heard jointly and disposed of by a common judgment and order. Facts of each of the case are being discussed in separate paragraphs of the common judgment and order.3. The writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 759 of 2006 was initially appointed as LDC (Lower Division Clerk) in the Directorate of Education (S), Government of Manipur vide order of the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur dated 8.1.1973 (Annexure-A/1 to the present writ petition). The petitioner also passed the examination for Office Procedure held on 19.8.1973 and result of the said examination was published on 15.2.1974. The name of the petitioner appear at S1. No. 14 in the said notification dated 15.2.1974. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
U.B. Saha, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order, dated 6.12.04, of the learned single Judge, in writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1263 of 2000, whereby and whereunder, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the order of his removal/dismissal from service.2. The facts, in brief, short for details and necessary for disposal of this appeal lie in narrow compass and are as follows: The appellant/writ petitioner joined in service as Rifleman of the 6th Battallion (for short Bn.) Manipur Rifles, and he was serving the said Battallion, since his appointment, till he was suspended, by the authority on the basis of first information report lodged by one L. Henglilal J.C. No. 238 of 6th Bn. M.R. Ukhrul, to the effect that the appellant/writ petitioner (for short delinquent appellant) had killed his own son, Master Kaminthang, aged about 5 years old, on 10.7.92, at his rented house a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. The writ petitioner's son Md. Tamijuddin @ Tammi @ Md. Tamijur Rahaman died in a police firing on 03.02.2000. The incident took place at a place known as Irong Thana Thongkhong. At the relevant time, the election for the Manipur State Assembly was in the process and the candidates and their supporters were on the street for campaign. On that day, at about 5.00 p.m., Md. Abdul Salam, the then sitting MLA, was on house to house campaign and his convoy had just reached the spot in front of the house of one Th. Ibotombi Singh, Pradhan of Maibam Village Gram Panchayat near Hamilton Bridge. At that point of time a group of supporters of the candidate belonging to Federal Party of Manipur (in brief 'MFP') also reached the same spot simultaneously. The deceased Tamijuddin @ Tammi was in the group of Manipur Federal Party and he was driving a jeep with other supporters. It may be mentioned here that the sitting MLA was provided with personal security by the Government. Appre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Amitava Roy, J.1. The challenge is to the cancellation of the petitioner's licence issued under the Assam Public Distribution of Articles Order, 1982 (hereinafter also referred to as the 'Order'), to act as a retailer in Superior Kerosene Oil for Haripur village under the Haripur Grahampur SS Ltd. This Court by order dated 28.9.2006, had kept in abeyance the impugned order dated 25.9.2006. It is submitted at the Bar that on the very same date following the cancellation of the petitioner's licence, the Assistant Director of Food & Civil Supplies, Gossaigaon, had issued a fresh licence in favour of the respondent No. 5. The said respondent has filed an application being Misc. Case No. 4189 of 2006, praying for alteration/modification/cancellation and/or vacation of the interim order.2. I have heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Roy, learned State counsel for the official respondents. Also heard Mr. S. Huda, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T.N.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Mr. A. Nilamani Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bimol, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned CGSC for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as well as Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned GA for respondent nos. 1 and 2.2. The core question involved in the present writ petition is; whether the Human Rights Commission can file the present Writ Petition for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State respondents to discharge their duties contemplated in Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.3. The short facts which will suffice for deciding the core question formulated above are that: 'The Manipur Human Rights Commission' was constituted by the State Government of Manipur in exercising the power conferred by Section 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. By virtue of Section 29 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, provisions of Sections 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 shall also be applicable to the State Hum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
R.B. Misra, J.1. Heard Mr. B.K. Deb Roy, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 7. None appears for the respondent No. 8 despite notice to it.2. In the present writ petition, the impugned order dated 01.07.99 (Annexure-4) passed by the Secretary, Managing Committee, Sualmari Govt. Aided (Deficit) ME School, East Garo Hills (in short 'school') terminating the service of the petitioner working as Headmaster of the said school as well as another order dated 12.05.2000 (Annexure-7) giving approval of termination by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Resubelpara, East Garo Hills have also been challenged. For convenience, the orders dated 01.07.99 and 12.05.2000 are extracted below:3. According to the petitioner, he was originally appointed as Assistant Teacher in the year 1994 in officiating capacityin the said school and later on, his service was regularized on 14.09.1994. According to the petitioner, he has rendered service with s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T. Vaiphei, J.1. The petitioner in this writ petition is questioning the legality of the notifications dated 5.1.2001 and dated 16.1.2001 issued by the Revenue Department, Government of Meghalaya under the provisions of Sections 4(1) and (2) and 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) for acquiring about 7.879 acre situate at Maxwelton Estate, Kench's Trace, Shillong for construction of Office Complexes on the ground that there is no urgency.2. Though the facts in the writ petition are numerous, the point in controversy actually lies within a narrow compass. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid plot of land bounded on the North by Stream, on the South by PWD Road, on the East by PWD Road and on the East by the land of (late) B.K. Dey, Smt. Rajashree Bhattacharjee and on the West by the land of (late) R.K. Bisharad, which she claimed to inherit from her late husband, namely, Chittaranjan Baruah, is recorded in her ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. By making this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. the petitioner, who was complainant in Complaint Case No. 209/2004, has sought' for, inter alia, setting aside and quashing the judgment and order, dated 2-5-2005, passed, in Criminal Revision No. 6(l)/2005, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dibrugarh, has set aside the order, dated 3-8-2004, passed, in Complaint Case No. 209/2004, whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dibrugarh, took cognizance of offences under Section 420/506/294/34, IPC and directed issuance of processes to the accused named therein.2. The material facts, which have led to the making of the present application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. may be set out as follows:(i) The petitioner herein lodged a complaint, which gave rise to the Complaint Case No. 209/2004 aforementioned, the complainant's case being, briefly stated, thus : The complainant is the proprietor of a business concern, which is run under the name and sty...
Tag this Judgment!