Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1983)85BOMLR115; 1983MhLJ317
..... he was further warned by the said order that his failure to vacate as directed would expose him to action under sub-section (2) of section 31 of the bombay police act, 1951. the appellant thereupon filed the writ petition on the original side of this high court, out of which the present appeal arises ..... was stated that 23 policemen mentioned in the said notice had been dismissed from the bombay city police force by the government of maharashtra with effect from august 18, 1982 by an order under section 25(2) of the bombay police act read with clause (c) of the second proviso to article 311(2) of ..... article 226 of the constitution of india filed by the appellant. the appellant was an unarmed police constable in the bombay city police force. by an order dated august 16, 1982 passed by the governor of maharashtra in exercise of the powers vested in him under clause (c) of the second proviso to ..... t.b. mane, unarmed police constable, b. no. 13906 of bombay city police force from the service with immediate effect.by order and in the name of the governor of maharashtra, bombay.s e a l sd/-16 aug. 1982 secretary to the government of maharashtra, home department, bombay.the said order expressly states ..... secretary, the minister of state for home, the chief minister (incharge of home, portfolio) and after perusing the related papers the governor of maharashtra had satisfied himself that in the interest of the security of the state it was not expedient to hold an enquiry and has passed an order .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR39; (1991)93BOMLR220
..... though he belonged to the halbi community of st which is not recognized for the state of goa eventhough he hailed from the state of maharashtra where that caste had been specified under section 342 of the constitution.29. mr. rebello, however, mentions that the decision in olga's case did not consider the point required to ..... bench and that is the bombay port trust had not framed any regulations though required under section 28 read with section 126 of the major port trusts act and what is more, bombay port trust had already framed regulations for class i and class ii posts. in the absence of regulations, the reservation policy of maharashtra state was imbibed and followed ..... ) siddi (nayaka) and (5), varli. but, once the territory of goa was comprised as a separate state, by virtue of section 19 of the goa, daman and diu re-organization act, 1987, the constitution (scheduled castes) order, 1950, the constitution (scheduled castes) union territories) order, 1951, the constitution (scheduled tribues) order, 1950 and the constitution (scheduled tribes) (union territories) order ..... , 1951, stood amended and the constitution (goa, daman and diu) scheduled castes order, 1968 and the constitution (goa, daman and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1976)78BOMLR1
..... procession was imposed for the period october 3, 1975 to october 10, 1975. on october 9, 1975 the government of maharashtra accorded sanction for ex-lending the period of prohibitory orders issued under section 37(3) of the bombay police act, 1951 for a further period of one month with effect from october 10, 1975. in view of the said order, the order ..... relying upon his own general orders issued from time to time under section 37(3) of the bombay police act, 1951 (prohibiting all assemblies throughout greater bombay except with his permission) as also relying upon the general order dated october 14, 1975 issued by respondent no. 2 (state of maharashtra) under rule 69 read with rule 1a of the defence and internal security of ..... internal disturbance. after the proclamation of emergency declared by reason of danger to internal security, on june 27, 1975, the commissioner of police, greater bombay by his order issued under section 37(5) of the bombay police act, 1951, (bombay act xxii of 1951) prohibited any assembly of five or more than five persons and any procession of any persons for a period of one week as ..... 6. the petitioners in this petition are challenging the validity of the various orders from time to time issued by the commissioner of police under section 37(5) of the bombay police act, 1951 and the order of the commissioner of police, bombay, refusing to grant permission to the petitioners to hold the proposed meeting. they are also challenging the validity of the order dated .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(3)BomCR221; 2009(111)BomLR869
..... there is no provision as to how and on what basis appointment is to be made to the post of director general of police of state of maharashtra. there are provisions, like section 6 of the bombay police act, 1951 and section 3 of the indian police service (appointment by promotion) regulations, 1955, which provide for the procedure and method which need to be adopted by the competent authority ..... of police force, which lays down that the police force shall consist of such number in the several ranks ..... on termed as 'director general of police' (inspector general of police), other posts of director general of police and conditions of service of that post.31. in terms of section 3 of the bombay police act, 1951, there is one police force for the whole of the state of maharashtra and such police force shall include every police officer referred to in clause (6) of section 2. section 5 thereof deals with the constitution .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2008(2)ALLMR649; 2008(2)BomCR575; (2008)110BOMLR512; 2008(4)MhLj553
..... burden on the public exchequer and the three respondents only stands benefited for non compliance of certain technicalities particularly compliance of section 26 of the bombay police act, 1951. 31. it is further contended that even in their application before maharashtra administrative tribunal they have only sought quashing and setting aside of the impugned order. the learned counsel for the respondents ..... case of nitin j. raut v. state of maharashtra and anr. (supra) in para 8 and 9 of the reported judgment, this court has already taken a view that the case of the personnel of police force stands protected by s.26 of the bombay police act, 1951. section 26 of the bombay police act, 1951 reads as under:26. procedure to be observed in ..... . vinayak raosaheb patil and mr. suhas p.kalamkar challenged the order before maharashtra administrative tribunal which held that the state having failed to comply with the provisions of section 26 of the bombay police act, 1951, the impugned order of removal of police officers who were serving as senior police inspectors came to be quashed and set aside. the state has challenged the ..... order of the maharashtra administrative tribunal in both the matters by passing a common judgment / .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001BomCR(Cri)537; (2001)2BOMLR307; 2001(2)MhLj437
..... and cannot be equated with the preventive detention under the act 55 of 1981. in our view, similar position would emerge while considering the provisions of section 56 of the bombay police act. no doubt the apex court in pandharinath rangnekar v. state of maharashtra, has observed that section 56 of bombay police act can be invoked, if an only if, the authority ..... that the law relating to the preventive action under section 151 of the criminal procedure codecriminal procedure codecriminal procedure code as well as section 56(bb) of the bombay police act was specifically brought into existence by the maharashtra prevention of communal, anti-social and other dangerous activities act, 1980 (act 7 of 1981). the said act, according to the petitioner was brought into existence in ..... the self same grounds. it is urged on behalf of the petitioners that externment action under the bombay police act is also a preventive action, as observed by the apex court in the case of pandharinath rangnekar v. state of maharashtra.4. since the issues raised in these writ petitions, in our view, were quite significant, we ..... authority has filed affidavit and specifically placed on record that he had considered the fact that invocation of the provisions of the criminal procedure codecriminal procedure codecriminal procedure code or section 56 of the bombay police act would be wholly inadequate and ineffective qua the detenus. there is no reason to doubt the correctness of this assertion. the court cannot sit .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1982CriLJ2059
..... v. district magistrate, thane : 1956crilj1126 , and hari khemu gawali v. dy. commr. of police, bombay : 1956crilj1104 . it would be noticed that the relevant provisions in ..... this court. s. 27 of the city of bombay police act, 1902 (4 of 1902) which provides for the dispersal of gangs and bodies of persons has been upheld by this court in gurbachan singh v. state of bombay, : 1952crilj1147 whereas s. 56 and s. 57 of the subsequent bombay police act 1951 (22 of 1951) have been confirmed respectively in bhagubhai dullabhbhai bhandari ..... bombay act of 1951. as we have already mentioned there can be no doubt that the purpose and object of the act are above reproach and that it is the duty of the state legislature to ensure that public peace and tranquillity is not disturbed by the prejudicial activities of the criminal and undesirable characters in society'.section 59 of the bombay police act ..... ), zone iii bombay forwarded all the material to the commissioner of police together with his report. thereafter on 27th november, 1980 the deputy commissioner of police heard the petitioner through his advocate and ultimately passed the impugned order of externment.4. being aggrieved by this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the state of maharashtra. the said appeal .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
..... r.c.c. no.157/1998, respondents ?? accused no.1 and 2 filed application exhibit 46 invoking section 161 of the bombay police act, 1951 (hereinafter referred as ??the police act ? in brief), claiming that the complaint filed by magistrate as well as the charge sheet filed by the police regarding the offence alleged was time barred as the incident complained of that they had beaten complainant shantabai ..... of state of maharashtra vs. narhar rao, reported in air 1966 sc 1783, observations of the hon'ble supreme court show that police officer accepting bribe to weaken case of prosecution against accused cannot be said to be committing acts under the colour of office or act done in excess of duty or authority within the meaning of section 161 of the bombay police act. it found that ..... the limitation of six months did not apply to such police officers. in the same report, in the matter of state of maharashtra vs. atma ram and ors., reported in air .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi330; ILR1969Delhi426
..... under sections 405, 409 and 477-a of the indian penal ..... cannto be investigated by the delhi special police establishment. (6) no legal consent to the investigation by the delhi special police establishment in the state of maharashtra could be given in view of the provisions of the bombay police act, 1951 or was given under section 6 of the act of 1946 and (7) sections 104 and 105 of the insurance act, 1938, punish offences similar to those as are punishable ..... . the bombay police act, 1951, no doubt consolidates the police forces of the different parts of the state into one common police force. it could not, however, repeal the delhi special police establishment act, 1946, authorising the special police to go into the state of maharashtra with the consent of the maharashtra government to investigate an offence which has been committed there. the consent given by the government of maharashtra under section 6 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(5)BomCR89; 2000BomCR(Cri)89; 1999(1)MhLj952
..... the relevant provisions of the code of criminal procedure and the bombay police act, 1951, and the various judgments, the proceedings ..... public prosecutor, herself has fairly put before us, the ruling of the bombay high court, in the case of avinash madhukar mukhedkar v. the state of maharashtra, : 1983(2)bomcr791 . in that case, the petitioner was prosecuted for offence punishable under section 124 of the bombay police act, 1951, by following the same procedure as obtaining in the present matter. after considering ..... or with fine only, it is a non-cognizable offence. so, the offence punishable under section 145 of the bombay police act, 1951, is non-cognizable offence. here, we wouldlike to make it clear that the bombay police act, 1951, no where provides that the offence punishable under section 145 is a cognizable offence. 14. so in case of non-cognizable offence, the ..... the learned counsel for the respondent, that the very filing of the charge sheet was illegal. there cannot be two opinions that the offence punishable under section 145 of the bombay police act, 1951, is a non-cognizable offence. part-ii of the first schedule of the code of criminal procedure, 1973, provides that if offence against other .....Tag this Judgment!