Raja Jagdish Pratap Sahi vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 13 February, 1973
In Virendra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P. 1986 All.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.10 seconds)Ram Ranjan Chatterjee vs The State Of West Bengal on 22 January, 1975
L.J. 53 relying upon a decision of Supreme Court in Ram Ranjan Challerji v. Stale of West Bengal AIR 1975 SC 609 it was observed "The distinction between the "areas of law and order" and 'public order' is one of degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of the life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of 'public order". If the contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinguished from a wide spectrum of the public, it would raise a problem of law and order only.
Arun Ghosh vs State Of West Bengal on 2 December, 1959
In case of Arun Ghosh (AIR 1970 SC 1228) (supra) it was observed "It is always a question of degree of the harm and its effect upon the community. The question to ask is : Does it lead to disturbance of the current of life of the community so as to amount a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquillity of the society undisturbed?. This question has to be faced in every case on facts.
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs State Of Bihar And Others on 7 September, 1965
In the case of Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar AIR 1966 S.C. 740 the Apex Court cited examples to show how similar acts in different context effect different law and order on one hand and the public order on the other.
Chinta Mani Tripathi vs State Of U.P. on 14 December, 1990
In the case of Amar Mani Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1986 All. L.J. 498 it was held that in cases where cause of attack were on account of personal animosity, the ground of detention did not relate to problem of public order but are problems of law and order. Similarly wherein the detenu along with his associates committed murder of a person in a shop in important business centre of the district on account of enmity, it was held that it had no reach on local community or public at large.
Wazir Yadav vs The State Of U.P. And Ors. on 10 July, 1992
14. These are in verbatim the same allegations against the petitioner Anil in his detention order. There could be no reason for the authority not to have considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the report of the Advisory Board in respect of Nanak Chandra and Sunil. While approving the detention of the petitioner, the Government was required to keep in mind the fact that in similar circumstances detention of two other detenus was revoked. If the grounds of detention are identical, the revocation of detention orders in respect of two and confirming the same in respect of third one can result in gross discrimination from person to person. This view is strengthened from the decision of this Court in Wazir Yadav v. State of U.P. reported in 1992 (2) E.F.R. 637 : 1993 Cri LJ 1220 and decision in Aruna Shankar v. State of U.P. 1984 All. L.J. 1031.
Karuna Shankar Tripathi vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 27 September, 1991
14. These are in verbatim the same allegations against the petitioner Anil in his detention order. There could be no reason for the authority not to have considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the report of the Advisory Board in respect of Nanak Chandra and Sunil. While approving the detention of the petitioner, the Government was required to keep in mind the fact that in similar circumstances detention of two other detenus was revoked. If the grounds of detention are identical, the revocation of detention orders in respect of two and confirming the same in respect of third one can result in gross discrimination from person to person. This view is strengthened from the decision of this Court in Wazir Yadav v. State of U.P. reported in 1992 (2) E.F.R. 637 : 1993 Cri LJ 1220 and decision in Aruna Shankar v. State of U.P. 1984 All. L.J. 1031.