Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.46 seconds)Section 3 in Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 [Entire Act]
Article 213 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajanagari Residents Association Aged ... vs Tripunithura Municipality on 31 March, 2015
Association's case (cited supra), after considering a catena of decisions of
the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court dismissed the writ petition. Relevant
portions of the said decision read thus:
Janata Dal vs H.S. Chowdhary And Ors. on 28 August, 1992
The Court is constitutionally bound to protect the
fundamental rights of such disadvantaged people so as to
direct the State to fulfill its constitutional promises. [See S.P.
Gupta v. Union of India, People's Union for Democratic
Rights v. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC 494, Bandhua Mukti
Morcha v. Union of India and Others, (1984) 3 SCC 161, and
Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305)]
Charles Sobraj vs The Suptd., Central Jail, Tihar. New ... on 31 August, 1978
(ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental
rights of a large number of the public vis-a-vis the
constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the
Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public interest
litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law
relating to pleadings. [See Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central
Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, (1978) 4 SCC 104, and Hussainara
Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar
(1980) 1 SCC 81)]
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, Govt. Of ... on 12 February, 1979
(ii) Issues of public importance, enforcement of fundamental
rights of a large number of the public vis-a-vis the
constitutional duties and functions of the State, if raised, the
Court treats a letter or a telegram as a public interest
litigation upon relaxing procedural laws as also the law
relating to pleadings. [See Charles Sobraj v. Supdt., Central
Jail, Tihar, New Delhi, (1978) 4 SCC 104, and Hussainara
Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar
(1980) 1 SCC 81)]
Maneka Sanjay Gandhi And Anr vs Rani Jethmalani on 23 November, 1978
In Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v.
Rani Jethmalani (AIR 1979 SCC 468), it was held:
Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) By Lrs. And Anr vs B.D. Agarwal And Ors on 7 July, 2003
"2. Assurance of a fair trial is the first imperative of
the dispensation of justice and the central criterion
for the court to consider when a motion for transfer is
made is not the hypersensitivity or relative
convenience of a party or easy availability of legal
services or like mini-grievances. Something more
substantial, more compelling, more imperilling, from
the point of view of public justice and its attendant
environment, is necessitous if the court is to exercise
its power of transfer. This is the cardinal principle
although the circumstances may be myriad and vary
from case to case. We have to test the petitioner's
grounds on this touchstone bearing in mind the rule
that normally the complainant has the right to choose
any court having jurisdiction and the accused cannot
dictate where the case against him should be tried.
Even so, the process of justice should not harass the
parties and from that angle the court may weigh the
circumstances." (See also Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D)
By Lrs. and Anr. v. B.D. Agarwal and Ors. (2003) 5
SCALE 138)
Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union ... vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1980
(iv) The common rule of locus standi is relaxed so as to
enable the Court to look into the grievances complained on
behalf of the poor, the depraved (sic), the illiterate and the
disabled who cannot vindicate the legal wrong or legal injury
caused to them for any violation of any constitutional or
legal right. [See Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v.
Union of India, (AIR 1981 SC 344), S.P. Gupta (supra), People's
Union for Democratic Rights (supra), Dr. D.C. Wadhwa (Dr) v.
State of Bihar [(1987) 1 SCC 378] and BALCO Employees' Union
(Regd.) v. Union of India and Others [(2002) 2 SCC 333].