SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1612

A. M. AHMADI, M. K. MUKHERJEE, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
State Of H. P. – Appellant
Versus
High Court Of H. P. – Respondent


(1) SPECIAL leave granted.

(2) ACTING on a press report (Jansatta) dated 5-5-1995 the High Court in suo motu exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution directed that a certain road be constructed during the financial year in question in any case before the next financial year runs out. This is purported to have been done in enforcement of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court stated that although construction of all the roads mentioned in the petition is necessary, it directed the State to complete at least the important ones among them and particularly, Link Road from Bhakhality to Majhar. It further directed that adequate funds be provided for this purpose by the State Government for completion of this road and other roads so that the long-standing demand of the people of the area is met. It is this order of the High Court which is put in challenge before us under Article 136 of the Constitution.

(3) WE have heard the learned counsel for the State Government, none appearing on behalf of the original petitioner, namely, the High Court. We find it extremely difficult to uphold the decision of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top