citedby: 1149295

Dipali Sikder vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 23 August, 2018

"One cannot be unmindful about the fine distinction between violation of one's ordinary legal right and infringement of one's fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. When a person comes to a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging violation of his ordinary legal right, the Court may refuse to grant relief to a party if he does not approach the Court with all promptitudeness. However, if fundamental right of a citizen is infringed, can the High Court refuse to enforce fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen only on the ground of delay? The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, in the case of Padma Rani Thakur vs. Secretary, Department of Home; reported in 2007 (1) CLJ (Cal) 21, held that when in a writ application, a citizen alleges infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution at the instance of a State, and if such infringement is actually proved, a writ Court should not dismiss such an application on the ground of delay. The said conclusion was arrived at by following a settled principle of law which declares that there can be no loss of fundamental right on the ground of non-exercise of such right"

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - P P Banerjee - Full Document

Rajpati vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 September, 2018

"One cannot be unmindful about the fine distinction between violation of one's ordinary legal right and infringement of one's fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. When a person comes to a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging violation of his ordinary legal right, the Court may refuse to grant relief to a party if he does not approach the Court with all promptitudeness. However, if fundamental right of a citizen is infringed, can the High Court refuse to enforce fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen only on the ground of delay? The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, in the case of Padma Rani Thakur vs. Secretary, Department of Home; reported in 2007 (1) CLJ (Cal) 21, held that when in a writ application, a citizen alleges infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution at the instance of a State, and if such infringement is actually proved, a writ Court should not dismiss such an application on the ground of delay. The said conclusion was arrived at by following a settled principle of law which declares that there can be no loss of fundamental right on the ground of non-exercise of such right"

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - P P Banerjee - Full Document

Pranesh Chandra Debnath vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 6 September, 2018

"One cannot be unmindful about the fine distinction between violation of one's ordinary legal right and infringement of one's fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. When a person comes to a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging violation of his ordinary legal right, the Court may refuse to grant relief to a party if he does not approach the Court with all promptitudeness. However, if fundamental right of a citizen is infringed, can the High Court refuse to enforce fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen only on the ground of delay? The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, in the case of Padma Rani Thakur vs. Secretary, Department of Home; reported in 2007 (1) CLJ (Cal) 21, held that when in a writ application, a citizen alleges infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution at the instance of a State, and if such infringement is actually proved, a writ Court should not dismiss such an application on the ground of delay. The said conclusion was arrived at by following a settled principle of law which declares that there can be no loss of fundamental right on the ground of non-exercise of such right"

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - P P Banerjee - Full Document

Jyotish Chandra Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 September, 2018

"One cannot be unmindful about the fine distinction between violation of one's ordinary legal right and infringement of one's fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. When a person comes to a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging violation of his ordinary legal right, the Court may refuse to grant relief to a party if he does not approach the Court with all promptitudeness. However, if fundamental right of a citizen is infringed, can the High Court refuse to enforce fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen only on the ground of delay? The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, in the case of Padma Rani Thakur vs. Secretary, Department of Home; reported in 2007 (1) CLJ (Cal) 21, held that when in a writ application, a citizen alleges infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution at the instance of a State, and if such infringement is actually proved, a writ Court should not dismiss such an application on the ground of delay. The said conclusion was arrived at by following a settled principle of law which declares that there can be no loss of fundamental right on the ground of non-exercise of such right"

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - P P Banerjee - Full Document

H N Sharma And Anr vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 21 August, 2020

10. On the aspect of delay, the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Padma Rani Thakur v. The Secretary, Department of Home reported in (2007) 1 CLJ (Cal) 21 may be referred to where the court held that the rule that belated and stale claims may not be entertained is not a rule of law but a rule of practice and the principle on which the relief to a party is denied on the ground of delay is that the rights which had accrued to others by reason of such delay should not be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay. The principle is that parallel rights should not be created or accrued in the W.P. (C) 1724/2017 Page 31 of 36 interregnum when the party who ought to have come to a court stayed away. The said decision is also important for the proposition that a writ court should not dismiss a claim on the ground of delay when a citizen alleges infringement of a fundamental right; the principle being that there can be no loss of fundamental right for the non-exercise of such right.

Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - J Singh - Full Document

Niranjan Kumar Mondal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 9 February, 2012

One cannot be unmindful about the fine distinction between violation of one's ordinary legal right and infringement of one's fundamental right guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. When a person comes to a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging violation of his ordinary legal right, the Court may refuse to grant relief to a party if he does not approach the Court with all promptitudeness. However, if fundamental right of a citizen is infringed, can the High Court refuse to enforce fundamental right guaranteed to a citizen only on the ground of delay? The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, in the case of Padma Rani Thakur vs. Secretary, Department of Home; reported in 2007 (1) CLJ (Cal) 21, held that when in a writ application, a citizen alleges infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution at the instance of a State, and if such infringement is actually proved, a writ Court should not dismiss such an application on the ground of delay. The said conclusion was arrived at by following a settled principle of law which declares that there can be no loss of fundamental right on the ground of non-exercise of such right.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 24 - Cited by 139 - J Bhattacharya - Full Document

Padma Nath vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 August, 2019

10. On the aspect of delay, the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Padma Rani Thakur Vs. The Secretary, Department of Home reported in (2007) 1 CLJ (Cal) 21 may be referred to where the court held that the rule that belated and stale claims may not be entertained is not a rule of law but a rule of practice and the principle on which the relief to a party is denied on the ground of delay is that the rights which had accrued to others by reason of such delay should not be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay. The principle is that parallel rights should not be created or accrued in the interregnum when the party who ought to have come to a court stayed away. The said decision is also important for the proposition that a writ court should not dismiss a claim on the ground of delay when a citizen alleges infringement of a fundamental right; the principle being that there can be no loss of fundamental right for the non- exercise of such right.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 14 - Cited by 140 - M Bhattacharya - Full Document

Salim Ahmed vs S E Railway on 16 November, 2018

2. The applicant has' cited a decision of this Tribunal in O.A.1584/1999 rendered on 29.07.2002 and has claimed parity. Id. counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to a representation dated 16.08.2017 preferred by the applicant seeking appointment to the post on the basis of a selection/interview held on 10.08.1999 and 11.08.1999 and claimed that he was enlisted for such appointment as a successful candidate against SI. No.352. He has also relied upon / 1 / 3 ) • \ 1 / ' > • \ a decision rendered by Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in case of Padma Rani / Thakur vs. The Secretary, Department of Home & Ors. reported in 2007 (1)CL J(Cal) but has failed to indicate in what manner it applies to the present applicant.

Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results