Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC654; 1983(2)SCALE867; 1984Supp(1)SCC157
1. There is no substance in this election appeal which has been preferred by the defeated candidate.2. Election to the Lok Sabha seat from the 13th Bangalore South Parliamentary Constituency in the State of Karnataka was held on January 6, 1980. The appellant was a Congress (I) candidate while respondent No. 12 was a Janata candidate; respondent No. 12 having polled the highest number of votes, namely, 1,98,390 votes as against 1,95,663 votes polled by his nearest rival the appellant, was declared elected; 8,067 votes were rejected as having been invalidly cast. The election of Respondent No. 12 was challenged by the appellant by filing an election petition in the Karnataka High Court on several grounds. None of the grounds succeeded and his petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.3. In support of the appeal substantially only one contention was urged by counsel for the appellant. According to him, the records which are required to be maintained under Rules 45 and 56 of the Conduct o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC380; [1984(48)FLR387]; 1984LabIC177; 1983(2)SCALE910; (1984)2SCC433; 1984(1)SLJ566(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave arises from a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad confirming the decision of the District Judge in appeal reversing the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the appellant.2. Appellant was working as a permanent Upper Division Clerk in the Defence Accounts Department at the relevant time. It appears that one Nathu Singh was wanted in a dacoity case. On 14.5.62 around about 4.00 the Investigating Officer received an information that Nathu Singh was present in the premises in possession of the present appellant and this information led to a search of the premises occupied by him. The search and the consequent seizure led to the prosecution of the appellant for two distinct offences, one under Section 19(f) of the Indian Arms Act and another under Section 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act. Pending the investigation appellant was suspended from service with effect from May 14, 1962, the order having been passed on May 5, 1962. The ord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC399; 1983(2)SCALE800; (1984)2SCC404; [1984]1SCR939; 1984(16)LC179(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. At the conclusion of the hearing of the above appeals on November 16, 1983, we pronounced the following order :Heard counsel for the parties. The appeals are allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside without any order as to costs. We now give our reasons.2. Two questions arise for consideration in these three appeals which are filed against the judgment and order dated July 10, 1981 of the High Court of Allahabad in Election Petition No. 7 of 1980. They are :1. Whether the Secretary of a State Legislative Assembly is not qualified to be appointed as the Returning Officer at an election held to fill a seat in the Rajya Sabha ?2. Whether a person elected as a member of a Legislative Assembly but who has not made and subscribed the prescribed oath or affirmation as required by Article 188 of the Constitution can validly propose a person as a candidate at an election held for filling a seat in the Rajya Sabha ?3. In February, 1980 the Legislative Assembl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC758; [1984(48)FLR472]; 1984LabIC444; 1984Supp(1)SCC351
ORDER1. Petitioners in each of these petitions were members of the police force in the State of Punjab belonging to various ranks in the police force. They were dismissed from service on the ground that they had participated in an agitation which was impermissible under the rules governing discipline in the police force of Punjab. Large number of persons similarly situated filed writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and after the writ petitions were dismissed, they preferred appeals by special leave. This Court examined that case in Civil Appeals Nos 3183-3184 of 1983- Sengara Singh v. State of Punjab - and rendered decision on August 2, 1988 (reported in 1983 Lab IC 1670).2. At the hearing of these petitions, Mr. P.K. Mridul, learned Counsel who appeared for the respondents urged that the State of Punjab has filed a review petition against the decision of this Court m Sengara Singh's ease rendered on August 2, 1983. It was further submitted that therefor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC396; 1983(2)SCALE1107; (1984)2SCC36; [1984]1SCR932; 1984(16)LC225(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali. J.1. By an Order dated 15th November, 1983 we had allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order of the High Court without making any order as to costs. This election appeal arises out of an interlocutory by order passed by the Delhi High Court on an application given by the respondent for directing the Returning Officer to produce the marked electoral rolls for inspection. The Court also granted further prayer of the respondent for allowing inspection of the counterfoils. The High Court granted both the prayers and hence this appeal.2. The appeal arises out of the election held for the Metropolitan Council from the Narela Constituency. As a result of the poll the appellant Hari Ram secured 12369 votes and Hira Singh (respondent) 12131 votes. Thus the appellant was declared elected. The respondent-petitioner had made a number of allegations against the appellant but in the present appeal we are only concerned with the interlocutory prayer made by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC410; 1983(2)SCALE817; 1984Supp(1)SCC345
ORDER1. We have heard the petitioner in person and Shri V.S. Desai for the respondent on this review application. The petitioner has vehemently contended that it is no longer in the interests of the child, Gospi, to continue her in the boarding institution, Kimmins High School, Panchgani, and he has attempted to show by reference to documentary material that it would make for the happiness and welfare of the child if she were put to school in Bombay. It appears to us on careful consideration that while the respondent has uniformly attempted to encourage the child to settle down in the Kimmins High School and to improve her standard of scholastic and extra-curricular activities, the petitioner, on the contrary, has made no effort in that regard. In fact, we get the impression that during his visits to the child in school and in the period she spends her holidays with him a sense of dissatisfaction with the school is created in the child's mind, with the result that the child suffers fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1984(48)FLR121]; 1983(2)SCALE898; 1984(Supp)SCC212
ORDER1. The petitioners have been serving as employees of the state of Kerala or of Public Sector Corporations in that State for the past few years. By these writ petitions they contend that they are 'workmen' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and ask for a declaration that the proposed termination of their employment by the Government of Kerala or by the Corporations is unconstitutional.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and for the respondents at some length. We are of the opinion that the best solution, in the circumstances of the case, is to ask and allow the petitioners to appear for the next Public Service Commission examination.3. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioners and all others who are similarly situated will be permitted to appear for the next examination which the State Public Service Commission may hold. The petitioners will be entitled to appear for that examination along with the other candidates who may be due to appear for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC582; 1984CriLJ299; 1983(2)SCALE855; (1984)1SCC204; [1984]1SCR902; 1984(16)LC165(SC)
ORDERY.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. The question raised in this petition is whether the Government can ask the police not to enter a place of worship, even if criminals are reported to be hiding or harboured therein. It is impossible and undesirable for any Court to issue a general writ of Mandamus to the effect that whenever a criminal is suspected to have taken shelter in a place of worship, the police must enter that place, regardless of the overall situation of law and order. Speaking generally, Courts cannot enforce law and order by issuing general directions without reference to specific instances. The Government has to assess, in the context of the prevailing conditions, the impact of the steps taken to enforce law and order. And, it is the executive which has to take a policy decision as regards the steps to be taken in a given situation, after taking into account the demands of the prevailing situation. We do not commend or suggest that the police should be silent spectators to want...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC457; [1984(48)FLR122]; 1984LabIC148; (1984)ILLJ116SC; 1983(2)SCALE814; (1984)1SCC279; [1984]1SCR927; 1984(1)SLJ139(SC); 1984(16)LC155(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the Patna High Court quashing an award of the Industrial Tribunal of Bihar in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and the workmen's union has carried the appeal.2. Two disputes were referred to adjudication Under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act but the appeal is confined to only one, viz., 'whether the workmen are entitled to payment of bonus for the year 1966-67 under the Payment of Bonus Act over and above the 'attendance bonus' which is being paid in this establishment If so, what should be the quantum of bonus ?' The Tribunal found that the workmen were entitled to attendance bonus over and above the ' bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 ('Act for short), and specified the amount as required under the reference. The employer challenged the Award before the High Court and contended that no separate attendance bonus was payable when bonus was bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC571; 1984(1)Crimes341(SC); 1983(2)SCALE775; (1984)1SCC339; [1984]1SCR904
D.A. Desai, J.1. Petitioner is a student of Political Science studying in Jawaharlal Nehru University at Delhi. He belongs to Naga community and hils from Manipur. He has moved this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution praying for a writ of habeas corpus calling upon the respondents-Union of India, State of Manipur and Commandant, 21st Sikh Regiment to produce before this Court Shri C. Daniel, a former Naik Subedar attached to Manipur Rifles and at the relevant time Head Master of Junior High School, Huining, Ukhrul East District Manipur State and Shri C. Paul, Assistant Pastor, attached to the Baptist Church in'Huining village who according to the petitioner were whisked away on March 10, 1982 from Huining village to Phungrei Camp and detained by the officer incharge of 21st Sikh Regiment and are held incommunicado, not released till today nor their whereabouts are made known.2. Petitioner averred that 21st Sikh Regiment has set up a camp at Phungrei. Some jawans attached to ...
Tag this Judgment!