Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC314; 1983(31)BLJR1; [1982(45)FLR387]; 1983LabIC426; (1983)ILLJ213SC; 1982(1)SCALE843; (1982)3SCC191; 1982(14)LC678(SC)
ORDER1. this Court pronounced judgment in Paramjit Singh Sandhu and Ors. etc. v. Ram Rakha and Ors. etc., on March 22, 1979, now reported in (1979) 3 S.C.R.2. One Jashpal Singh Dhaliwal has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition styling it as one for clarification/directions but in substance one for quashing the seniority list prepared by the State of Punjab and published on June 4, 1981, in respect of the cadre of Deputy Superintendents of Police in Punjab Police Service. The contention is that the seniority list prepared by the State is not in conformity with the judgment but in contravention of the same and that it is likely that the State may have committed an error in drawing up the seniority list on account of its misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the ratio of the judgment and, therefore, this Court may clarify the relevant portion of the judgment and in order to make the judgment effective, give direction to prepare a fresh seniority list in accordance with th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1473; 1982(0)BLJR401; (1982)IILLJ454SC; 1982(1)SCALE818; (1982)3SCC235; [1983]1SCR456; 1982(14)LC657(SC)
P.N. Bhagwatil, J.1. This is a writ petition brought by way of public interest litigation in order to ensure observance of the provisions of various labour laws in relation to workmen employed in the construction work of various projects connected with the Asian Games. The matter was brought to the attention of the Court by the 1st petitioner which is an organisation formed for the purpose of protecting democratic rights by means of a letter addressed to one of us (Bhagwati, J). The letter was based on a report made by a team of three social scientists who were commissioned by the 1st petitioner for the purpose of investigating and inquiring into the conditions under which the workmen engaged in the various Asiad Projects were working. Since the letter addressed by the 1st petitioner was based on the report made by three social scientists after personal investigation and study, it was treated as a writ petition on the judicial side and notice was issued upon it inter alia to the Union ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1982(1)SCALE805; (1982)3SCC15; 1982(14)LC655(SC)
1. The writ petitioners were dealers in Indian Made foreign liquor. They were holders of composite wholesale and retail dealers' licences. Now, the wholesale and retail licences for dealing in such liquors have been declined and separate licences were issued to wholesale dealers and retail dealers. The wholesale dealer's licence for the entire city of Madras was issued to one M. Subbarama Reddy, the third respondent in W.P. No. 6797 of 1981 and not to any of the writ petitioners. The writ petitions were filed in these circumstances.2. The reliefs prayed for in Writ Petition No. 6797 of 1981 are (a) to declare Sections 17C, 17D, 20B and 23A of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 as amended, as unconstitutional and liable to be struck down; (b) to declare Rules 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 16, 18 and. 22 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Licence and Permit) Rules, 1960 to be unconstitutional and liable to be struck down; (c) to declare that the Notification dated 12.6.1981 issued by the Commissioner of Proh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC300; 1983CriLJ445; 1983(1)Crimes11(SC); 1982(1)SCALE811; (1982)3SCC18; 1982(14)LC854(SC)
1. As we felt after fully hearing counsel on either side that the impugned, order of detention herein deserved to be quashed, we by our order dated 9th September, 1982, directed the immediate release of the appellant and stated that our reasons would follow. We now proceed to give our reasons.2. The appellant Yumnani Mangibabu Singh (the detenu) is a science graduate and was at the material time serving as Superintending Engineer (Class I post) in the Electricity Department of the Government of Manipur at Imphal. It is alleged that on 13th May, 1981 he wrote a letter to Head Quarters, Peoples' Liberation Army, Eastern Region, an unlawful organisation in Manipur, promising financial help to the organisation in his official capacity. On 31.10.1981 the Army called him to its Head Quarters, Imphal and as soon as he reached there he was handed over to the Police Station on lodging a complaint (F.I.R.) against him for offences under Sections 121/121-A I.P.C. and 13 of U.A.P. Act. He was prod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC311; 1983CriLJ449; 1983(1)Crimes1(SC); 1982(1)SCALE838; (1982)3SCC135
1. Detenu Raverdy Marc Germain Jules, a French national, at the relevant time was employed as Airport Manager by Air India at Geneva. By an Air India flight, on September 20, 1981, he arrived Judgment dated September 17, 1982 in S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 1242 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 618 of 1982. at Sahar International Airport Bombay and passed through green channel indicating he had no dutiable goods to declare to the Customs Authorities. When he was at Exit Gate No. 1, the Intelligence Officer questioned him about the contents of two suit cases and other packages carried by him. The reply led to the inspection of the baggages which led to the recovery of watch parts weighing 4 1/2 kgs in 8 packages. This led to a further enquiry, and evaluation of the watch parts led to the conclusion that the value was Rs. 3,91,200 CIF. Ultimately, the Government of Maharashtra, on December 16, 1981, made an order of detention with a view to preventing the detenu from smuggling goods, in exercise ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC320; 1983CriLJ629; 1983(1)Crimes15(SC); 1982(1)SCALE789; (1982)3SCC10; 1982(14)LC726(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave was heard on September 1 1982 and having been satisfied that the detention order was vitiated ' we made an order quashing and setting aside the order of detention reserving that the reasons would follow. Here are the reasons.2. Raj Kishore Prasad s/o Mahendra Prasad was detained pursuant to an order dated September 23, 1981, made by the District Magistrate, Gopolganj, under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act 1980 ('Act' for short), on the ground that he be prevented from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. This order was served upon the detenu on September 25, 1981, and he was taken into custody and was detained in Muzaffarpur Central Jail. The detaining authority simultaneously served upon him the grounds of detention The order of detention was approved by the State Government on October 2, 1981, as required by Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act. He made a representation inviting the detaining authority to qu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC323; 1983CriLJ632; 1982(1)SCALE803; (1982)3SCC9
ORDER1. Special leave limited to the question of sentence only.2. Appellant is convicted for having committed an offence under Section 377 I.P.C., in that he committed an unnatural offence upon a young boy who had come to his house to take a syringe. The learned magistrate convicted him for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for three years. While recording the order of sentence, the learned Magistrate observed:Although no previous conviction is proved against the accused but I think accused is not entitled to get any benefit of probation in this case because offence is serious and heinous. I, therefore, sentence the accused to undergo R.I. for three years.The appellant preferred an appeal which was heard by Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. The Appellate Court affirmed the finding of the trial court and accordingly confirmed the conviction. The learned judge has not discussed the question of adequacy or otherwise of the sentence imposed upon the appellant. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC1391; 1982(1)SCALE807; (1982)3SCC209
ORDEROrder dated 8th September, 19821. In the following writ petitions:W.P. Nos. 915/82 (Buta Singh), 917/82 (Durga s/o Tikam), 921/82 (Ajit Singh), 922/82 (Darshan Lal), 923/82 (Vijay Kumar), 924/82 (Jagdish), 925/82 (Bhagwan Jha), 926/82 (Inder Singh), 927/82 (Surinder Singh), 928/82 (Joginder Singh), 929/82(Roshan Lal), 934/82 (Ram Tahl), 935/82 (Mohd. Sulaiman), 936/82 (Gurmit Singh), 937/82 (Sant Lai @ Pappu), 938/82 (Bhola Nath).the cases of these petitioners were recommended for release by the Superintendent of Jail on their completion of 10 years imprisonment inclusive of remissions since each one of them was aged below 20 years at the date of the commission of the offence. From the affidavit in reply which has been filed in these matters it appears clearly that the only ground en which their release orders have not been passed and consideration of their cases has been deferred is that the Sentence Revising Board is yet to ascertain the date of birth and the proof of each one's...
Tag this Judgment!