Mandamus which is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is requested to be issued, inter alia, to compel performance of public duties which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature.
Writ Petition under Article 227 challenging the orders passed by Civil Courts refusing to grant interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC could very well be maintainable. […]
At the first instance the petitioner has to satisfy this Court that he is entitled to maintain this writ petition as a public interest litigation. Such public interest litigations are entertained as […]
Whether a writ proceeding is civil or criminal, depends on the nature of relief claimed and grounds for such relief. “Civil Proceedings” or “Criminal Proceedings” are not defined anywhere. The Constitution of […]
A writ of certiorari like the writ of prohibition is a judicial writ of antiquity and it is the ordinary process by which the Court of King’s Bench Division exercises control over […]
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the concerned accused to take recourse to appropriate remedy as may be permissible in law. The interim order passed by this Court on 29th August, 2018 shall continue for a period of four weeks to enable the accused to move the concerned court. The said proceedings shall be decided on its own merits uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment, which is limited to the reliefs claimed in the writ petition to transfer the investigation to an independent Investigating Agency and/or Court-monitored investigation. The Investigating Officer is free to proceed against the concerned accused as per law. All the accompanying applications are also disposed of in terms of this judgment”. [Read the Judgment]
September 6, 2018-Writ Petitions under Article 32-Army Service Corps-The Officers belonging to the ASC, Army Ordinance Corps, and Electronic and Mechanical Engineers, i.e. the services stream, do not constitute a common cadre with those serving in the Arms, and Arms Support for the purposes of promotion.4 As a result, they were not entitled to be considered for promotion to the rank of Colonel against the vacancies created in pursuance of the implementation of the AVS Committee Report.
The Petitioners have contended that the Posting Orders passed by the Respondents posting them to operational areas/units is violative of their Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Petitioners have, however, failed to substantiate how their Fundamental Rights have been violated. Postings and transfers are a necessary incident of service. Hence, the grievance, if any, cannot be entertained under Article 32.
KEYWORDS:-SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION AIR 1954 SC 362 : (1955) 1 SCR 168 : (1954) CriLJ SC 1012 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) M. K. Gopalan and another Appellant Versus The State of MADHYA […]
In Bathutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R. Tarta and another, (1975) 1 SCC 858, this Court held : “The High Court cannot in guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert […]
Latin, meaning “you have the body.” A writ of habeas corpus generally is a judicial order forcing law enforcement authorities to produce a prisoner they are holding, and to justify the prisoner’s […]
