Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
N.T.Stalin Barathi vs The District Collector on 21 November, 2023 cites

State Of Orissa vs Ram Chandra Dev & Anr on 25 November, 1963

41. Again, in State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev's case (supra), the Apex Court made it clear that under Article 226, the jurisdiction of the High Court 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No1582/2024 was undoubtedly very wide. Appropriate writs could be issued by the High Court under the said article even for the purposes other than the enforcement of fundamental rights and, in a sense, the party who invokes the special jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is not confined to a case of illegal invasion of his fundamental rights alone. Nevertheless, it is held in para 8 of the judgment, that though jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 was very wide, the concluding words of the article clearly indicated that before a writ or any appropriate order could be issued in favour of a party, it must be established that the party had a right and the said right was illegally invaded or threatened.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 159 - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Suraj Parkash Kapur, Etc on 4 May, 1961

In State of Punjab v. Suraj Prakash Kapur (supra), it was reiterated that the existence of a right and the infringement thereof was the very foundation of the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The relevant observations are to be found in para 4 of the judgment, at page 508, where it was observed that the right that can be enforced under Article 226 must, ordinarily, be a personal or individual right of the petitioner. It may be a right conferred by Part III of the Constitution or by any other statute. But there must be a legal right, of which infringement is pointed out.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 108 - Full Document

Sri K.M. Venkatesh S/O Late ... vs The Secretary Urban Development ... on 14 September, 2007

(11)However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied on the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 01.04.2024 made in WP.No.5163/2024 K.Venkatesh Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Chennai and Others], wherein on the objection raised by the police for grant of police protection to the petitioner therein, the learned Single Judge has held as follows:-
Karnataka High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - K S Rao - Full Document

P.D. Shamdasani vs Central Bank Of India Ltd on 21 December, 1951

''37...He contends, and in our opinion rightly, that granting of armed police protection to such criminals round the clock would be putting a premium on their criminal activities and would create a very odd situation in the society. Wherever these criminals go, they would be safely protected by armed police round the clock. This may protect not only their life and personal liberty, but would encourage and facilitate their indulging in crime. As indicated earlier, with the modern telecommunication systems being available to persons like the petitioner, we are of the view that granting armed police protection round the clock to the petitioner, would encourage and facilitate his indulging in crimes. For instance, if armed police guard is provided to the petitioner at his residence round the 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No1582/2024 clock, nothing prevents him from contacting his ‘friends’ on cellular phones without being disturbed or threatened by his enemies. What he apprehends is the threat to his life and personal liberty from his enemies and not by any State action which alone is forbidden by the mandate of Article 21. It is clear to us from the observations of the Apex Court in P.D. Shamdasani's case that what Article 21 protects is only invasion of a person's right to life and personal liberty by the State. If there is a threat to the petitioner's right to life and personal liberty by a rival criminal, it is difficult to spell out a right under Article 21 in favour of the petitioner to the extent that the State must provide him with armed police guard round the clock. As mentioned in para 20 above, the ratio of the decision in P.D. Shamdasani's case has been specifically approved by the Apex Court in Vidya Sharma's case in A.I.R. 1956 S.C. 108.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 47 - M P Sastri - Full Document

Sivasankaran @ Pittu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 June, 2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No1582/2024 (9)The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to personal protection when the threat perception is real and he is unable to take care of his family. The learned counsel then relied upon the order of this Court dated 05.07.2007 made in Crl.OP.No.17933/2007 [D.Sivasankaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary, Home Department, Chennai and Others]. The prayer in the Criminal Original Petition was to direct the Joint Director of CBI to take over the investigation of the case in few crime numbers which are pending before the Inspector of Police at Valangaiman Police Station, Tiruvarur so as to conduct a fair and impartial investigation. However, taking note of certain incidents which shows serious threat to the life and property of the petitioner, a Learned Single Judge of this Court while transferring the case for further investigation by CBCID, directed the Director General of Police to give suitable instructions to other police officials to give adequate police protection to the petitioner therein at Chennai. (10)The order relied upon by the petitioner is distinguishable on facts. Even though that was also a case where the petitioner therein was an accused in a case of murder, there were several circumstances and incidents that led 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP.No1582/2024 to the transfer of investigation to CBCID. It is to be noted that the petitioner therein was given interim protection even during pendency of the said Criminal Original Petition and taking note of the circumstances pointed out at the time of grant of interim relief to the petitioner therein, this Court directed such protection to the petitioner therein.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V Sivagnanam - Full Document
1   2 Next