Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. KAPADIA, CJI., K.S.P. RADHAKRISHNA, SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.
Manzoor Ali Khan & Another
Versus
Union of India & Others
Writ Petition (C). No. 83 of 2005
Decided on : 10-01-2011
Judgment :
1. The present petition is filed in public interest. It seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Union of India, various States in India and public sector undertakings (PSUs) to produce the respective records regarding expenditure incurred for giving advertisements. According to the petitioners, the said expenditure is a wasteful expenditure. According to the petitioners, such advertisements are given to enhance images of political leaders. In short, the petitioners seek to challenge the authority of the Union of India and various States as also PSUs, in the matter of their incurring expenditure on advertisements.
2. We find no merit in this petition. Firstly, we find that detailed guidelines have been framed by the Union of India – Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP), which is the nodal agency of the Government of India for advertising by various ministries and organizations of the Government of India. Similarly, in each State there is a Department of Information which is the nodal agency for releasing advertisements. Since guidelines have been framed by DAVP as well as the Director of Information in each of the States, we see no reason to interfere. The matter is also squarely covered against the petitioners by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Laxman Moreshwar Mahurkar v. Balkrishna Jagannath Kinikar (AIR 1961 Bom 167).
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
