DDA is acting unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, even in contractual matters, appropriate relief can be granted. Judicial pronouncements on the issues as to when in contractual matters involving the state or its instrumentality writ interference can be resorted : Delhi High Court
Calcutta High Court held: Illegal intrusion of police into Howrah Court premises is violation of Constitution and Laws
The need for a building for a court is fundamental to its existence. Judicial institutions
are the institutions of the national life contemporaneous with the fact that they are the seeds of dispensation of the Judicial Authority under the Constitution and the Laws. Such authority of the Court being inseparable element of the sovereign, unauthorised intrusion into its premises and the activities would stand to breach the Constitution and the Laws. The executive agency of a State, viz., the Government, has the constitutional duty to provide infrastructure for the Courts and also to protect those institutions and premises dedicated for activities in connection with the Courts.
Article 311 consists of two sub-articles and their effect is no longer in doubt. The question about the safeguards provided to the public servants in the matter of their dismissal, removal or […]
Under the common law both in England and in India the context for material being considered by the court is relevancy. There can be no dispute that the manner in which evidence […]
The remedy under Article 226 is extraordinary and is of Anglo-Saxon vintage but it is not a carbon copy of English processes.
To appreciate the legal position we only wish to refer to two of the decisions of this Court reported in Dwarakanath v. Income Tax Officer 1965 (2) SCJ 296 and Gujarat Steel […]
Supreme Court in Mahabir Auto Stores and others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and others held that the State or its instrumentality, when engaged in commercial transactions, must act reasonably, and should inform and […]
62. A second writ petition for issuing a writ of habeas corpus is barred by principles of res judicata. The doctrine of res judicata may not apply in case a writ petition […]
Alternative remedy shall not bar application u/a 226 of Constitution on grounds of fundamental rights, natural justice and challenging Vires
(2011) 2 CalHCN 28 : (2011) 129 FLR 322 : (2011) LabLR 597 : (2011) 4 LLJ 121 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT DIVISION BENCH ( Before : Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J; Baskar Bhattacharya, J […]
07-10-1964-There can be no doubt that the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens are a significant feature of our Constitution and the High Courts under Art. 226 are bound to protect these fundamental rights. There can also be no doubt that if a case is made out for the exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 in support of a citizen’s fundamental rights, the High Court will not hesitate to exercise that jurisdiction. But the question as to whether a citizen should be allowed to challenge the validity of the same order by successive petitions under Art. 226, cannot be answered merely in the light of the significance and importance of the citizens’ fundamental rights. The general principle underlying the doctrine of res judicata is ultimately based on considerations of public policy. One important consideration of public policy is that the decisions pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction should be final, unless they are modified or reversed by appellate authorities; and the other principle is that no one should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice over, because such a process would be contrary to considerations of fair play and justice, vide : Daryao and Others Vs. The State of U.P. and Others, .
Supreme court dismissed the writ petition U/a 32, now the High court shall not entertain a petition U/A 226 of the Constitution.
After dismissal of the writ petition by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner has not filed any review petition. It was open to the petitioner to file review and in case of its dismissal a curative petition. He has failed to point out as to why the same was not done. At his juncture, we may clarify that before Hon’ble Apex Court Annexure P-14 (which is annexure No. 1 to the instant writ petition), the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 23.10.2004 was challenged. In the given circumstances, we find that neither review was filed nor any curative petition was filed nor it is stated before this Court that any such petition is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Accordingly, finality is to be attached to the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 11.4.2005. Even at this stage, the petitioner has not pressed before this Court that he is inclined to file such petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Consequently, we have to proceed with the matter with the assumption that the order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court has become final as the same has not so far been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Whether Habeas corpus could be maintained if a person is in police custody by remand order-SC said no.
September 05, 2018. The question as to whether a writ of habeas corpus could be maintained in respect of a person who is in police custody pursuant to a remand order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate […]
State of West Bengal and OTHERS Versus The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and OTHERS[ALL SC 2010 FEBRUARY]
KEYWORDS:- CBI INVESTIGATION-WRIT POWER- Despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise […]
KEYWORDS:- Panchayat Elections- Election Violetion- DATE:- April 09, 2018. Once the election process has been set in motion, the Court ought not to interfere ACT:-Article 32 of the Constitution of India AND West Bengal […]
KEYWORDS: PIL-SEX SELECTION- Exposer to internet- DATE : December 13, 2017- Many are guided by inappropriate exposure to the internet. The respondents have a role to control it and if any concrete […]
KEYWORDS: FORUM SHOPPING-FORUM HUNTING BY SENIOR LAWYER It is not obligatory for this Court to give reasons for dismissing the writ petition. Day in and day out in countless cases, while refusing […]