Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC317; 1982(30)BLJR422; 1983CriLJ452; 1982(1)SCALE495; (1984)2SCC397; 1982(14)LC876(SC)
1. Kailash Pandey alias Ram Kailash is detained under the provisions of the National Security Act pursuant to an order made by the District Magistrate of Pratapgarh. The detention is challenged in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution on various grounds. I do not consider it necessary to set out the several grounds of challenge, as I am satisfied that the detenu is entitled to succeed on the principal ground urged on his behalf by Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, his learned Counsel.2. Each of the six grounds of detention mentioned in the 'grounds given under Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980' refers to a different incident based upon the confessional statements of one or other of the accused persons involved in those incidents. The grounds are based upon the confessional statements. The confessional statements are the very core of the grounds. Yet copies of those statements were not furnished to the detenu along with the grounds of detention. Thereby the detenu was denie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1473b; 1982(30)BLJR401; [1982(45)FLR140]; 1982(1)SCALE817; (1982)2SCC494; 1982(14)LC553(SC)
ORDER1. We allow the. writ petition and direct that the Union of India, the Delhi Administration and the Delhi Development Authority do take the necessary steps for enforcing observance of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, the Employment of Children Act, 1938 and the Inter-State Migration Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979 by the contractors engaged in the construction work of the Indoor Stadium at Indraprastha Estate, Asian Village Complex at Siri Fort Road, Swimming Pool at Talkatora Garden, Fly-overs at Indraprastha Estate, Moolchand Hospital, Oberoi Hotel and Lodi Road and the Hotel Project near Ashoka Hotel and for this purpose carry out weekly inspections and file copies of the inspection reports in this Court in the proceedings of the present writ petition and if any violations of the provisions of these statutes are noticed, then immediate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC339; 1983CriLJ675; 1982(1)SCALE793; (1982)2SCC583; 1982(14)LC543(SC)
ORDER1. There are some people who are critical of the practice adopted by this Court of taking judicial action on letters addressed by public spirited individuals and organisations for enforcement of the basic human rights of the weaker sections of the community. This criticism is based on a highly elitist approach and proceeds from a blind obsession with the rites and rituals sanctified by an outmoded Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. The most complete refutation of this criticism is provided by the action taken by the Court in this case. It was a letter dated 15th January 1982 addressed by the Free Legal Aid Committee Hazaribagh to one of us (Bhagwati, J.) which set the judicial process in motion and but for this letter which drew (he attention of the Court to the atrociously illegal detention of certain prisoners in the Hazaribagh Central Jail for almost two or three decades without any justification whatsoever, these forgotten specimens of humanity languishing in jail for years behind sto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1137; 1982(1)SCALE486; (1982)2SCC337; [1982]3SCR755; 1982(14)LC411(SC)
1. There is no substance in this group of writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution whereby the petitioners, who carry on business, inter alia, of the wholesale vend of beer and Indian Made Foreign Liquor at various places in the State of U.P. on the strength of licences granted to them in Form FL-2 under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, have challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 1(2), 3 and (5) of U.P. Excise (Amendment) Ordinance No. 4 of 1979 as also the constitutional validity of Sections 1(2), 3 and 5 of U.P. Excise (Amendment) Act No. 13 of 1979 (which replaced the said Ordinance No. 4 of 1979) as being violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution; the petitioners have also sought a declaration that Section 30(2), proviso to Clause (c) of Section 41 and Explanations I and II to Clause (c) of Section 41 of the U.P. Excise Act 1910 as amended by Sections 3 and 5 of the said Ordinance No. 4 of 1979 as well as by Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1201; (1982)2SCC414; [1982]3SCR729; 1982(14)LC767(SC)
1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated March 10, 1970, by which the High Court declined to interfere with an order of the State Government of Madhya Pradesh dated September 9, 1966 disallowing the appellant's claim to the grant of money or pension under Clause (ii) of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Central Provinces and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that they are not entitled to the grant of such money or pension not being 'the descendants of a former Ruling Chief in terms thereof.2. After the Central Provinces and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948 was brought into force, the appellants who held estates in the districts of Hoshangabad and Nimar on favourable terms as Jagirdar's Muafidars and Ubaridars enjoyed exemption from payment of land revenue amounting to an aggregate of Rs. 27,895.05p. per annum, made applications to the Dep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1244; [1982(44)FLR380]; (1982)IILLJ161SC; 1982(1)SCALE481; (1982)2SCC319; [1982]3SCR719; 1982(2)SLJ37(SC); 1982(14)LC374(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated 18.5.79 of the Allahabad High Court quashing the impugned seniority list dated 4.4.77 issued by the Government of U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Government') which resulted in the reversion of respondents 2 to 5 to lower posts.2. The facts of the case lie within a narrow compass and, in our opinion, seem to be concluded by several decisions of this Court. Respondents 2 to 5 had passed the High School Examination and entered the service of the Government as Marketing Inspectors under the establishment of Food & Supplies Department on various dates and were later confirmed on these posts. In fact, to begin with, the Department itself was temporary but was later on made permanent. It may be stated here that the post of Marketing Inspector was exempted from the scope of the Public Service Commission. The next higher post in the hierarchy of the Department was that of Senior Marketing Inspector and previous to the y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1183; 1982CriLJ1394; 1982(1)SCALE448; (1982)2SCC453; 1982(14)LC482(SC)
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. In this appeal, special leave was granted on the question of the nature of offence and sentence only. The learned Sessions Judge and the High Court have, concurrently, held that the four appellants were responsible for causing the injuries which were found on the person of the deceased, Mansur. While the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellants under Section 325 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and awarded a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment, the High Court--there was an appeal by the State--convicted the appellants under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for a period of seven years.2. The evidence of the doctor who carried out the autopsy on the dead body of Mansur revealed two contused lacerated wounds over the right frontal and fronto parietal region of the skull, each measuring 1 1/2' x 1/2' X bone deep, one contused lacerated wounds over the right eyebrow region measuring 1' X 1/4' X bone deep,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1984)1SCC358
A. Varadarajan and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.1. Counsel for both the parties are present and we have heard them at length. The High Court was clearly wrong in refusing to go into the merits of the case on the ground that appeal was not maintainable in view of the full bench decision in University of Delhi v. Hafiz Mohd. Said1. This decision is no longer good law in view of our decision in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania2 where we have laid down various parameters and conditions under which an appeal can lie from a Single Judge to the division bench. para 115 at p. 1816 of the above-referred decision may be extracted thus: (SCC p. 57, para 115)“Thus, in other words every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned. Similarly, orders passed by the trial Judge deciding question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1222; 1982CriLJ1729; 1982(1)SCALE451; (1982)2SCC437; 1982(14)LC484(SC)
Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The Enforcement Directorate of the Ministry of Finance received information that one Santosh Kumar Jain was engaged in illegal foreign exchange operations under the guidance of his father Manak Chand Jain and his brother Suresh Kumar Jain. On February 23, 1982, he was apprehended and his person was searched. Some items of foreign currency were seized. On the information given by him, Room No. 12-A, Regal Hotel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi was searched. More items of foreign currency were recovered, as also some articles like electronic watches, cameras, tapes, etc. Some documents, notebooks and diaries were also recovered. Among the documents seized, was an application for 'cable transfer' of the American Express International Banking Corporation, Hong Kong mentioning Ashok Narain as the person who had purchased dollars of the nominal value of 5000 dollars from the Bank for effecting a transfer of the amount to one Subhash Sehgal of New York. Thereupon the officers of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1143; 1982CriLJ1191; 1982(1)SCALE459; (1982)2SCC403; [1982]3SCR707; 1982(14)LC485(SC)
1. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, one Ashok Kumar seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of the order of detention dated August 11, 1981, passed by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi under Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (for short 'the Act') on being satisfied that his detention was necessary with a view to preventing him from 'acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order'. The main issue is as to whether the activities of the petitioner fall within the realm of 'public order' or 'law and order'.2. It appears that on August 12, 1981 while the detenu was held at the Central Jail, Tihar in connection with some of the offences committed by him, he was served with the aforesaid order of detention passed a day earlier i.e. on August 11, 1981. Two days later i.e. on August 14, 1981 he was furnished with the grounds of detention as well as with copies of documents and statements relied u...
Tag this Judgment!