Back
A.P.SEN, B.C.RAY
State Of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
A. Lakshmikutty – Respondent
The Supreme Court has affirmed that executive magistrates possess a statutory obligation under Section 144 CrPC to take immediate preventive measures against apprehended breaches of peace, including restraining dispossession from land, and this duty is reinforced when read with Sections 107 and 149 CrPC for binding over persons to prevent disturbances. (!)
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 154 CrPC imposes a mandatory duty on police and magistrates to register and act promptly on information regarding cognizable offences like land grabbing or threats, extending to expeditious consideration of applications for protection to uphold public tranquility. (!)
The Supreme Court clarified that undue delay or inaction by magistrates in processing applications under Sections 107, 144, 149 CrPC constitutes failure to perform a public duty, rendering them amenable to judicial review. (!)
The Supreme Court held that a writ of mandamus under Article 226 is issuable to enforce statutory duties of magistrates under CrPC preventive provisions where there is clear legal right and corresponding public obligation, absent any alternative efficacious remedy. (!)
The Supreme Court observed that Section 20 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, provides substantive protection to raiyati possession against unauthorized dispossession, complementing CrPC remedies, and non-enforcement by authorities justifies mandamus to prevent irreparable harm. (!)
The Supreme Court emphasized that magistrates must decide such applications within a reasonable time frame, treating them as urgent to avert escalation of disputes into breaches of peace, with failure attracting mandamus for expeditious disposal. (!)
Judgement
SEN, J. :- These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court dated April 29, 1985 quashing the Cabinet decisions of January 30, 1985 and February 28, 1985 and issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fill up five vacancies in the posts of District Judges meant for direct recruitment from the bar, by the appointment of respondents 1 and 3 to 6 as recommended by the High Court under Art. 233(1) of the Constitution. The issue involved is whether the issuance of a writ of mandamus by the High Court directing the Governor to act on the recommendation of the High Court to fill up the five vacancies in the posts of District Judges reserved for direct recruitment from the practising members of the bar under Art. 233(1) of the Constitution was constitutionally impermissible.
2. By the judgment, a Division Bench of the High Court has held that although it was not oblivious that the advice of the Council of Ministers to reject the panel of fourteen names forwarded by the High Court could not be subject to judicial review and that Art. 163(3) of the Constitution precludes an inquiry as to the nature of the a
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
