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

2011 Supreme(Cal) 956

PRATAP KUMAR RAY, MD.ABDUL GHANI
Hazi Md. Nasiruddin Akunji – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Md. Abdul Alim, Chandi Charan De, Lalit Mohon Mahato, Sk. Md. Galib

JUDGMENT

Ray, J.

1. A judgment has been delivered by Special Bench comprising of Three Judges of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in W.P. No. 331 of 2009 on 14th July, 2011 by passing the following order:-

"On consideration of the entire materials on record, we, therefore, hold that unless the following defects in the Act are removed in the light of our observations, the Act as presently structured is unconstitutional for the reasons stated earlier. However, the Act may be made operational by making suitable amendments, as indicated below :

A) Section 4(2) (b) of the Act should be deleted and should be substituted by a new provision for constitution of Selection Committee broadly on the following lines:

(a) Chief Justice of High Court or his nominee- as Chairperson (with a right of casting vote);

(b) A senior Judge of the High Court-as Member;

(c) Secretary in the Ministry of Finance- as Member; and

(d) Secretary in any of the Ministries -as Member.

B) In Section 4(3)(c)(i) of the Act, the phrase "Joint Secretary" should be deleted and substituted by "Secretary or Additional Secretary and the phrase "a specified Act" mentioned there in should be deleted and substituted by "all the specifi










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