Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IN
1
REPORTABLE
Versus
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
Leave granted.
Haryana.
examined from M/s Truth Labs, Bangalore and also got the
therein under the provisions of the 1988 Act and further for
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
4
orders. The grounds asserted for the assail were that there
(2014) 2 SCC 1
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
5
taken for inquiry, it has to come within the ambit and scope
held that:-
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
11
xxxxx xxxxx
following conclusion:-
Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta.
any law for such prosecution and the same shall be deemed
would submit that in the instant case, a civil writ was filed
reads as under:-
below:-
as invalid.
that the 1987 Act and the 1986 Act are beyond
the competence of the State Legislature.
And again:-
challenging the 1986 Act and the 1987 Act. Thus, it has
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
22
that:-
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
25
and (ii) it can take within its ambit the larger interest of the
to grant relief but upon the nature of the right violated and
that our Constitution did not make a break with the past. It
hold that:-
10
14
(2008) 14 SCC 58
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
32
by the party and the true nature of the order passed by the
AIR 1967 SC 1
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
33
that:-
18
23
26
(2015) 9 SCC 1
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
36
(supra) that a writ petition can lie only under Article 227 of
27
would lie and in other cases, it will depend upon the other
28
30
following question:-
51. Dwelling upon the said issue, the Court referred to the
31
32
interference.
High Court and the other by the Full Bench of High Court of
34
35
jurisdiction.
the case before the Full Bench related to right in land and
38
would not take out the case from the purview of criminal
Letters Patent.
39
thus:-
hold as follows:-
60. Being of this view, the Full Bench opined that the
has expressed the view that though the writ petitions were
not filed for quashing of FIR as in the case of the Full Bench
had agreed with the proposal not to press the application for
40
But that does not mean that an order passed by the Single
41
down the law and the view expressed by the Full Bench of
44
the High Court Rules and others. The said decision has to
65. In the case at hand, the writ petition was filed under
be no order as to costs.
..........................................J.
(Dipak Misra)
..........................................J.
(A.M. Khanwilkar)
..........................................J.
(Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)
New Delhi;
March 21, 2017.