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

1996 Supreme(All) 1298

B.M.LAL, B.K.SHARMA
ROHTAS SINGH – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER, AGRA DIVISION – Respondent


B. M. LAL, J.


( 1 ) FOR determining the questions involved at this stage, relevant facts of these cases are as under :in Rohtas Singhs case (supra), the Commissioner Agra Division Agra and certain other officials are alleged to have violated an order of this Court dated 6-9-93 and in Gaon Panchayats case (supra), the Distt. Panchayat Raj Adhikari Bulandshahar it alleged to have violated this Courts order dated 11-7-96 passed in both the aforesaid cases respectively, consequently this Court has issued notices to show cause as to why appropriate action be not taken against them, pursuant to which the contemners appeared before this Court through Sri S. M. A. Kazmi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

( 2 ) AN objection was raised that the State Law Officers i. e. Government Advocates, Deputy Government Advocates, Additional Government Advocates, Assistant Government Advocates, Standing Counsel, Chief Standing Counsel Additional Chief Standing Counsel and public prosecutors appointed by the State Government for appearing on behalf of State of U. P. cannot appear against the State of U. P. to defend the contemners and therefore, Mr. Kazmi cannot be allowed to appear and defend the contem














































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