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

2018 Supreme(SC) 1679

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, S.ABDUL NAZEER
Vijay Prakash Bharati – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abdul M. Raza, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Asad Khan, Adv. Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR

ORDER :

1. Heard. Delay condoned.

2. Permission granted.

3. In view of the fact that this Court has affirmed the view, taken by the High Court in the relied upon judgment dated 20.04.2009 in Dr. Vishwajeet Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (2009) 3 AWC 2929, vide order dated 19th January, 2017 in C.A. No(s).6385-6386 of 2010, Sanjeev Kumar Etc. v. State of U.P.& Ors. Etc., we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

4. Since the observations in the last part of the judgment are based on the view taken by this Court in Indra Sawhney Etc. v. Union of India and Ors. Etc., 1992 (Supp.3) SCC 217, which has been reiterated in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 6 SCC 1, after referring to judgment in K.C.Vasanth Kumar & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, (1985) Supp SCC 714, no interference is called for therewith also.

5. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

6. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

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