Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1569; 1982(30)BLJR577; (1982)3SCC389a; [1983]1SCR681; 1982(14)LC920(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. An unsuccessful candidate for election to council of States (Rajya Sabha) at the election held on March 28, 1979, is the appellant. At the biennial election for electing members to Council of States from the constituency of elected members of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, 19 candidates including the appellant and the 1st respondent were duly nominated as candidates. 11 members were to be elected. Election was to be held as mandated by Clause (4) of Article 80 of the Constitution in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. After the poll was closed according to the time prescribed by the Election Commission under Section 56 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('1951 Act' for short), the Returning Officer, PW. 4 Satya Priya Singh commenced counting of votes. As the election was to be in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote, the Retu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC46; (1983)85BOMLR21; 1982(2)SCALE948; (1982)3SCC519; [1983]1SCR655; 1982(14)LC905(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated December 14, 1981. By its Judgment the High Court struck down an order dated August 27, 1981 by which the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, in exercise of his powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956 (Act XXXVII of 1956) (for short 'the Act') with the prior approval of the Governor of Maharashtra, directed that the Judges and Division Courts of the High Court of Bombay shall also, sit at Aurangabad with effect from August 27, 1981 for the disposal of cases arising out of the Marathwada region of the State of Maharashtra.2. By an order dated May 4, 1982 we allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment of the High Court since it did not appear to us that the impugned order issued by the Chief Justice suffered from any infirmity, legal or constitutional. We now proceed to give our reasons.3. By virtue of Sub-section (1) of Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC876; 1982(2)SCALE997; (1983)1SCC14; 1982(14)LC866(SC)
ORDER1. Special Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against an order dated June 29, 1979, by which a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed Appeal No. 14/79 preferred by the present appellant on the ground that the appellants failed to comply with the order dated January 19, 1979, by which the appellants were directed to prepare the paper-books out of Court and to supply six typewritten or printed copies thereof within two months of the service of the notice of arrival of records upon the learned advocate for the appellants. The Division Bench noted that an earlier default by the appellant was condoned by recalling the order dated June 11, 1979, dismissing the appeal, but in view of the subsequent lapse on the part of the appellant even after restoration of the appeal and service of notice of arrival of the Record the appellants failed to comply with the Court's order dated January, 1979, the appeal was dismissed.3. This Court directed issue of notice by its order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1555; [1982(45)FLR457]; 1982LabIC1793; (1983)ILLJ217SC; 1982(2)SCALE938; (1982)3SCC341; 1982(14)LC835(SC)
ORDER1. Second Respondent, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (Commission, for short), invited applications for the posts of Junior Engineer in Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service and other allied services in the year 1977. In response to the advertisement about 4,000 applications were received. All eligible candidates were asked to appear at a viva voce test between November 1978 and March 1979. After the conclusion of the viva voce test the commission was in the process of finalising the select list. On September 14, 1979, the 1st respondent, Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. No, 646 and 647. By the first mentioned G.O. No. 646 issued in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Sub-clause (3) of Article 320 of the Constitution, the Government excluded from the purview of the Commission all appointments made by direct recruitment to any posts in any category at all levels in the State and Subordinate Services and which were continuing temporarily on August 9, 1979...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1550; 1982(2)SCALE934; (1982)3SCC338; 1982(14)LC851(SC)
ORDER1. Petitioner 2 and some others are running a restaurant under the name and style of petitioner 1 on the first floor of premises No. 23/3, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, since 1970. Petitioners had applied for a licence as required by Section 421 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ('Act'for short). In August 1976 petitioners were asked by the Municipal Corporation ('Corporation' for short) to deposit the licence fee from the date of application till March 31, 1977, in the total amount of Rs. 166/-which the petitioner duly deposited on August 17, 1976. A receipt acknowledging the payment of the licence fee was issued. Subsequently every year the licence fee was deposited from year to year with a request for renewal of licence and every year fresh receipt was issued which would tantamount to renewal of the licence. Such yearly renewal covered the period 1978-79. When the petitioners applied for renewal of the licence for the period April 1, 1979, to March 31, 1980, the Corpo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1552; [1982(45)FLR432]; 1982LabIC1790; (1982)IILLJ472SC; 1982(2)SCALE942; (1982)3SCC346; [1983]1SCR648; 1982(2)SLJ532(SC); 1982(14)LC862(SC)
ORDERD.A. Desai, J.1. Appellant Ramakant Misra joined service in the Kanpur Electric Supply Administration ('Administration' for short) which was then a Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. On the Constitution of U.P. Electricity Board ('Board' for short), under the provisions of Electricity (supply) Act, 1948 ('Act' for short), with effect from April 1, 1958, the Kanpur Electric Supply Administration stood transferred to the Board and the employees working in the Administration were deemed to be on deputation to the Board though they would continue to be Government servants as provided in a Circular dated March 13, 1959. As per Notification No. 3721E/74-23P (3)-155E/74 dated August 3, 1974 the posts held formerly in the Administration by the employees working in the Administration were abolished and the deputations were absorbed in the service of the Board. However, before the appellant could be so absorbed he was served with a charge sheet on November 19, 1971, alleging tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1548; 1982(30)BLJR589; 1982CriLJ2363; 1983(1)Crimes146(SC); 1982(2)SCALE910; (1982)3SCC328; [1983]1SCR630; 1982(14)LC894(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. On October 4, 1982, we quashed and set aside the impugned detention order dated April 20, 1982, in respect of detenu Devi Lal Mahto, reserving the giving of the reasons for our order to a later date. Here are the reasons.2. This is a petition under Article 32 for a writ of hebeas corpus filed by detenu Devi Lal Mahto challenging the order of preventive detention dated April 20, 1982, made by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad.3. Detenu Devi Lal Mahto was arrested on March 2, 1982, and was produced before the Chief Magistrate, Dhanbad, who remanded him to jail custody till March 17, 1982. On March 1982, detenu moved an application for bail which was fixed for hearing on March 24, 1982. On March 25, 1982 the bail application was rejected. On April 20, 1982, the District Magistrate, Dhanbad, made the impugned order of detention in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-section (2) read with Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 ('Act' for short). T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1543; 1982CriLJ2357; 1983(1)Crimes267(SC); 1982(2)SCALE903; (1982)3SCC301; [1983]1SCR635
D.A. Desai, J.1. On October 8, 1982, we quashed and set aside the detention order dated December 26, 1981 in respect of detenu Merugu Satyanarayana s/o Ramchander, deferring the giving of the reasons to a later date.2. On the same day we quashed the detention order dated February 13, 1982, in respect of detenu Bandela Ramulu @ Lehidas @ Peddi Rajulu @ Ramesh, s/o Venkati, deferring the giving of the reasons to a later date.3. Identical contentions were raised in both these petitions and, therefore, by this common order we proceed to give our reasons on the basis of which we made the aforementioned orders.WP. 1166/82.4. Detenu M. Satyanarayana was working in Belampalli Coal Mines. According to him he was arrested on October 22, 1981, but was kept in unlawful custody till October 31, 1981, when he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate who took him in judicial custody and sent him to Central Jail, Warangal. According to the respondents detenu was arrested on October 30, 1981, and wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1539; 1982(30)BLJR569; 1982CriLJ2354; 1983(1)Crimes57(SC); 1982(2)SCALE899; (1982)3SCC322; [1983]1SCR584
D.A. Desai, J.1. By our order dated October 8, 1982, the order of detention dated February 5, 1982, made by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad, against detenu Biru Mahato was quashed and set aside by us further stating that the reasons would follow. Here are the reasons.2. Detenu Biru Mahato was arrested on January 13, 1982, on the allegation that he was involved in two incidents which occurred, first at 5 p.m. and the second at 5.30 p.m. on January 12, 1982. In the first occurrence detenu and his associates appear to have committed offences under Sub-sections 341, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. F.I.R. led to registration of the offences at Bagmara Police Station numbered as 25(1)/82. F.I.R. No. 24(1)/82 has been registered at Bagmara Police Station for offences under Sub-sections 307 and 323, I.P.C. After his arrest the detenu was confined in prison. In respect of the first occurrence bail application of the detenu was accepted but in respect of the second oc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983(31)BLJR96; 1982(2)SCALE947; (1982)3SCC484; 1982(14)LC831(SC)
1. Special leave granted.2. The matter discloses a battle of wits rather than of any legal substance or injured rights. There is one room in Hari Bhawan which at present is occupied by a gentleman called Mool Chand Yadav who is described as General Manager of U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd., Rampur Unit (Corporation for short). The dispute going on is whether Hari Bhawan is a property which has vested in the Corporation and whether the Corporation is entitled to occupy it and whether a part of it can be used by the General Manager of the Corporation. In a suit filed by respondents an injunction was granted restraining the present appellants or their officers from occupying Hari Bhawan against which an appeal was filed by the present appellants which is pending. Subsequently, an application was made alleging flouting of the Court's order and the Court was invited to hold the Corporation and its Officers in contempt and to punish them for the same. This application resulted in the foll...
Tag this Judgment!