Rajni vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 2 December, 2002
On this point paras 19 and 20 of the S.M.D. Pasha v. Government of A.P. become relevant and the same are reproduced herein below :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 119 (2.89 seconds)P. Mansoor Mohammed Ali Jinnah vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 23 August, 1991
To the extent that the decision of this Court in S.M.D. Kiran Pasha v. The Government of Andra Pradesh and Ors. 1989 (4) SC 336) and the decisions of all the High Courts are contrary to or inconsistent with the view taken by us above, they will be deemed to have been disapproved and overruled.
Mukesh Kumar Jain vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 March, 1990
19. In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment we are of the view that this Court is empowered to consider the petition of the petitioner seeking the writ of mandamus for quashing the impugned order on merits even though the order of detention has not been served on the petitioner and he has not actually been placed under detention. As back as in the year 1986 this Court has already taken a similar view in Fazal Hussain v. State of M.P., (M. P. No. 1049 of 85) decided on 31-3-86 wherein reliance was placed on the case of Jayantilal Bhagwandas Shah v. State of Maharashtra, (1981 Cri LJ 767) (Bom) (supra) which has been approved by the Supreme Court in Kiran Pasha's case (1989 (4) JT 366) (supra).
Mukesh Kumar Jain vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 30 March, 1990
19. In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment we are of the view that this Court is empowered to consider the petition of the petitioner seeking the writ of mandamus for quashing the impugned order on merits even though the order of detention has not been served on the petitioner and he has not actually been placed under detention. As back as in the year 1986 this Court has already taken a similar view in Fazal Hussain v. State of M. P., M. P. No. 1049 of 85 decided on 31-3-1986 wherein reliance was placed on the case of Jayantilal Bhagwandas Shah v. State of Maharashtra (supra) which has been approved by the Supreme Court in Kiran Pasha's case (supra).
Dr. Vinod Narain vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 1 February, 1995
"In this regard it is sufficient to say that THE PROVISION OF GRANT OF INTERIM BAIL IS IMPLICIT IN THE MAIN PROVISION WHICH, SPEAKS OF BAIL AND THAT IS WHY BAILS HAVE BEEN GRANTED BY THE APEX COURT. Not only in bail matters, but also in maintanance and other matters on the same analogy, interim reliefs have been granted. (See SMDK Pasha v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (1989) 4 JT 366, Ghanshyam Das, (1982) 3 SCC 389, etc...".
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Nand Kishore Verma on 24 September, 1993
In support of such contention also he has relied upon the said decision of the Additional Secretary v. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia (supra) and S.M.D. Kiran Pasa v. Government of Andhra Pradesh . Mr. Mukherjee submits, in such view of the matter not only the interim order should be vacated, the writ petition itself should be dismissed, being not maintainable.
Ramesh Hansda vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief ... on 16 December, 2022
The reference of the judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Apex Court in S.M.D. Kiran Pasha Vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (supra),
reliance upon which has been placed by learned
counsel for the petitioners, is also required to be made
wherein it has been laid down as under paragraph 14
that the right to life and personal liberty has been
guaranteed as a fundamental right and for its
enforcement one could resort to Article 226 of the
Constitution for issuance of appropriate writ, order or
direction. Answering the question that precisely at what
stage resort to Article 226 has been envisaged in the
25
Constitution, it has been held that when a right is so
guaranteed, it has to be understood in relation to its
orbit and its infringement. Conferring the right to life
and liberty imposes a corresponding duty on the rest of
the society, including the State, to observe that right,
that is to say, not to act or do anything which would
amount to infringement of that right, except in
accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. In
other words, conferring the right on a citizen involves
the compulsion on the rest of the society, including the
State, not to infringe that right.
Rajendra Bissani vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 9 August, 1994
10. It is settled that writ petitionlies for protection of personal liberty, (1990) 1 SCC 328; S.D.M. Kiran Pasha v. Govt. of A.P. is pertinant.
Mrs.Bezawada Supriya, vs The Govt on 3 March, 2022
451) It is clear that the livelihood of the petitioners / farmers
and their right to live a life of dignity has been taken away in this
case. However, as a Fundamental Right of the petitioner viz., his
right to life is affected, this Court is of the opinion that it need
not restrict itself to a "post violation period" or for an actual
infringement to adjudicate or decide the issue. The Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India in S.M.D.Kiran Pasha v Government of
Andhra Pradesh and Others167 while dealing with a similar
issue held as follows in paragraph 14 -
Karan Yadav And Anr. Etc. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 22 April, 2000
(3) (1990) 1 SCC 328 (para 23-27) (S.M.D. Kiran Pasha v. Govt. of A.P.);