Search Results for "Representation disposal"

2116 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 2116 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Habeas Corpus Petition Challenging Preventive Detention Under M.P.A.D. Act Due to Inordinate Delay in Considering Representation. Detenu's Right to Speedy Consideration of Representation Under Article 22(5) Violated, Detention Order Quashed.

The petitioner, wife of the detenu Mohammed Iqbal @ Shembdya Iqbal @ Iqbal Jogeshwari Mohammed Hussain Mandal, filed a writ petition under Article 226...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Directs Authorities to Consider Representation on Encroachment Allegations in Public Land Dispute. Court Holds Non-Consideration of Representation by Statutory Authority Amounts to Dereliction of Duty Under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

The petitioner, Vinoth Kumar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court s...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act Due to Unreasonable Delay in Considering Representation. Unexplained Delay of 25 Days in Deciding Representation Renders Detention Illegal Under Article 22(5) of Constitution.

The petitioner, Mr. Rizwan @ Tippu Sattar Pathan, challenged an order of detention dated 5th May 2014 passed under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Pre...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Holds Commissioner of Customs Can Disagree with Inquiry Officer's Report Under CHA Licensing Regulations, 2004 — Full Bench resolves conflict on scope of disciplinary authority's power to differ from subordinate officer's findings.

The petitioner, M/s. Delta Logistics, a partnership firm, was a licensed Customs House Agent (CHA) under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order Under MPDA Act Due to Unexplained Delay in Deciding Representation. Delay of 13 Days in Deciding Detenu's Representation Violates Constitutional Safeguard Under Article 22(5) and Section 8(1) of MPDA Act, 1981.

The petitioner, Vinod Dhannulal Jaiswal, challenged an order of preventive detention passed by the District Magistrate, Aurangabad (respondent No.1) u...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Directs Statutory Authority to Consider Representation for Removal of Construction on Road Margin. Non-consideration of representation amounts to dereliction of duty, warranting mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, S.M. John Britto, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Cou...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Non-Application of Mind and Delay in Disposal of Representation. Preventive Detention Order Set Aside as Detenu's Fundamental Right Under Article 22(5) Was Violated Due to Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation.

The petitioner, mother of the detenu Manoj Sansare, challenged the detention order dated 22nd September 2005 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Bri...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Madras High Court Allows Writ of Mandamus for Patta Issuance Based on Civil Court Decree — Ex Parte Decree Not Set Aside Attains Finality, Respondents Directed to Consider Representation Within Six Weeks.

The petitioner, B. Ganesan, a senior citizen aged about 74 years, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ ...