Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)Section 46 in The Police Act, 1861 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Lalit Mohan Pandey vs Pooran Singh & Ors on 27 April, 2004
25. It is well settled that if a wrong has been committed by the respondents in respect to some other persons, that will not provide a cause of action to claim parity on the ground of equal treatment since the equality in law under Article 14 is applicable for claiming parity in respect to legal and authorized acts. Two wrongs will not make one right. The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another, AIR 2000 SC 2306; Union of India and another Vs. International Trading Co. and another, AIR 2003 SC 3983; Lalit Mohan Pandey Vs. Pooran Singh and others, AIR 2004 SC 2303; M/s Anand Buttons Ltd. etc.
Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari ... vs President, Indore Development ... on 7 February, 2006
Vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2005 SC 5565; and Kastha Niwarak G. S. S. Maryadit, Indore Vs. President, Indore Development Authority, AIR 2006 SC 1142 has held that Article 14 has no application in such cases.
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs Gadilingappa & Ors on 22 January, 2010
24. Suffice is to mention that those appointments are not under challenge in the present writ petition. Moreover, if respondents have done something wrong or illegal, the principle of equality is not attracted to claim a negative parity, i.e., parity in the matter of illegality. One cannot claim that since in respect to other persons, an illegality has been committed, therefore, it should be repeated in his case also. Article 14 does not contemplate an equality of opportunity in the matter of illegality. One cannot have a legal right compelling an authority to do something wrong in his case also which such authority has done in respect to one or more others. Moreover, this Court has no justification to compel an authority to do something, which is patently illegal by taking recourse to Article 14. Such assumption on the part of petitioners for claiming parity is clearly misconceived and erroneous. On the contrary, in State of Karnataka & others Vs. Gadilingappa & others (2010) 2 SCC 728, the Court said that it is well settled principal of law that even if a mistake is committed in an earlier case, the same cannot be allowed to be perpetuated.
The Police Act, 1861
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr on 27 April, 2000
25. It is well settled that if a wrong has been committed by the respondents in respect to some other persons, that will not provide a cause of action to claim parity on the ground of equal treatment since the equality in law under Article 14 is applicable for claiming parity in respect to legal and authorized acts. Two wrongs will not make one right. The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another, AIR 2000 SC 2306; Union of India and another Vs. International Trading Co. and another, AIR 2003 SC 3983; Lalit Mohan Pandey Vs. Pooran Singh and others, AIR 2004 SC 2303; M/s Anand Buttons Ltd. etc.
T.Lakshmipathi & Ors vs P.Nithyananda Reddy & Ors on 31 March, 2003
25. It is well settled that if a wrong has been committed by the respondents in respect to some other persons, that will not provide a cause of action to claim parity on the ground of equal treatment since the equality in law under Article 14 is applicable for claiming parity in respect to legal and authorized acts. Two wrongs will not make one right. The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another, AIR 2000 SC 2306; Union of India and another Vs. International Trading Co. and another, AIR 2003 SC 3983; Lalit Mohan Pandey Vs. Pooran Singh and others, AIR 2004 SC 2303; M/s Anand Buttons Ltd. etc.
Ravindra Kumar Saini vs State Of U.P. And Others on 20 December, 2011
5. In Second Petition, Kandwa Kumar Mishra, the sole petitioner was directly appointed as Sub-Inspector in Civil Police in 2001-2002 recruitment. While he was posted in District Chitrakoot, Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot, respondent no. 6, made a recommendation vide letter dated 9.12.2011 for consideration of petitioner (in Second Petition) for one rank "Out of Turn" promotion showing act of outstanding gallantry and courage in arresting a rewarded dacoit Kharag Singh on 7.1.2009 after facing indiscriminatory firing and chasing the criminals. Another similar recommendation was made by Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi in regard to petitioner's participating in a daring encounter in which a hardened criminal and shooter, Bunti alias Afroz, was killed on 7.10.2008. A third recommendation is said to be made by by Superintendent of Police, Jaunpur vide letter dated 21.5.2013. Since no decision was taken by respondents, a writ of mandamus has been sought in Second Petition directing respondents to consider petitioner for one rank "Out of Turn" promotion in the light of this Court's judgments dated 24.5.2013 in Writ Petition No. 2782 of 2009 (Manoj Kumar Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) and dated 20.12.2011 in Writ Petition No. 66308 of 2006 (Ravindra Kumar Saini Vs. State of U.P. and others).