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

1985 Supreme(All) 186

A. N. DIKSHITA, M. N. SHUKLA, H. N. SETH, M. WAHAJUDDIN, R. P. SHUKLA
KAILASH NATH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
V.D.OJHA, VIJAY BAHUGUNA

( 1 ) WE allow the petitioners two weeks time from today to file their representations or objections before the District Magistrate, Banda and order the District Magistrate to decide the same within three weeks from the date of filing such representations or objections. It is not necessary to set aside the impugned order and we accordingly dispose of these writ petitions without passing any such formal order. There will be no order as to costs. M. N. SHUKLA, C. J. (on behalf of himself and on behalf of WAHAJUDDIN and R. P. SHUKLA AND A. N. DIKSHITA, JJ.):- These two cases involve important questions interlinked with the daily lives of people, abiding in a civilised society, the executive authorities entrusted with the sovereign duty of maintaining law and order, extending certain privileges to citizens of the State who actuated by a desire to protect themselves may desire to procure arms for themselves, the necessity of regulating and controlling such privileges by rules of law and procedure, and making them liable to be withdrawn, altered or abridged on the non-fulfilment of certain conditions or the supervention of new factors. The orders impeached in these cases are orders passe




























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