Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Alipore Bar Association being not a state “other authority” or “agency or instrumentality” of the state within Article 12 and “authority or person” discharging public function within the meaning of Article 226, writ against Alipore Bar Association that too in the matter of election to the Bar Association is not maintainable.
“On account of handful persons sitting and blocking the road, inconvenience is being caused to the commuters and residents of the Tri-city and the misery is continuing.”
Directions were sought from the Supreme Court against the States to formulate scheme for community Kitchens to combat hunger, malnutrition and starvation and the deaths resulting thereof.
“Rendering the representations preferred by the aggrieved employees mute, by way of non-consideration by the State, is reflective of conduct unbecoming of government servants who are tasked with the noble responsibility to serve the citizens.”
No explanation was forthcoming in any of the affidavits filed on behalf of the State about non-payment of compensation to the dependents of the deceased sanitation workers who had died during manual scavenging.
The tests laid down in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, (1981) 1 SCC 722 were not fulfilled, hence, the Association is not ‘State’ within Article 12.
Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ cannot be issued against a Government- entity which has been subsequently privatized and no longer performs any public duty.
“The writ petition, while initially deemed maintainable, has since become non-maintainable due to the privatization of Air India Limited. This development has rendered it beyond this Court’s jurisdiction to issue any writ, order, or direction against the respondents.”
The Court said that the State is responsible for aiding the business of illegal mining and allowing illegal transport of thousands of metric tonnes of coal
Even though petitioners have claimed that deduction of an amount of their contribution to the Society is permitted by the Ministry of Finance and that the land to run the Society is allocated by the Government, we find that purpose to provide aid in the form of sanction and land to the Society is to enable it to function smoothly to the benefit of its members. However, this does not establish that these functionaries are being run by the Air Force or the Central Government.
Supreme Court: On the issue of the scope of judicial review of action by the State in a matter arising from a
Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed challenging the judgment passed by the Single Judge whereby the writ petition of
Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant writ petition wherein an elected member of Federation of Karnataka Chambers of Commerce
Bombay High Court: In total 4 writ petitions were filed against Air India Ltd./AIL (‘respondent’) by the AIL employees (‘petitioners’),
“Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226.”
Rajasthan High Court: In a case of an illegal termination of a Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank being pending for
Digitization is the road ahead. It should lead to empowerment and not deprivation. The “ifs” haunt me. What can the court do in such circumstances when the student is not at fault?
Supreme Court | The Division Court of Vikram Nath* and Dinesh Masheswari, JJ. held that the State’s act of taking the appellants’
Supreme Court: The 3-judge Bench comprising Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat*, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ., reversed NCDRC’s findings where it had
Supreme Court: Reversing the concurrent findings of the Single Judge and Division Bench of Kerala High Court, the Bench of S. Abdul