Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
Vijay Prakash Bharati - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors - Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nos. 17987 of 2018
Decided On : 02-07-2018
Interference - Affirmation of High Court's View - Observations based on Previous Court Judgments
Fact of the Case:
The Court affirmed the view taken by the High Court in a previous judgment and found no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court concluded that based on its previous judgments and affirmations of the High Court's view, there was no ground for interference with the impugned order, and accordingly dismissed the special leave petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was any ground to interfere with the impugned order based on the Court's previous judgments and affirmations of the High Court's view.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by its previous affirmations of the High Court's view and observations based on previous judgments, leading to the conclusion that no interference was called for.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was accordingly dismissed, and pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
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.
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
