In the turbulent tapestry of late 20th-century Indian politics, few dates stand out as sharply in the history of the Sikh struggle as (referenced in records as 1/SEK/1142/APJ/1987). This date marks a pivotal, yet often overlooked, moment of insurrection—the attempted assassination of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher, during her visit to India. This event was not merely a security lapse; it was a stark manifestation of the deep-seated rage simmering within the Punjab insurgency, highlighting the global reach of the conflict and the precarious nature of international diplomacy during times of internal strife.

The incident itself, often obscured by the larger violence of that decade, involved a plot to target Thatcher during her movements in New Delhi. The perpetrators were activists linked to the Khalistan movement, driven by a desperate desire to internationalize their cause. While the attempt was foiled by Indian intelligence and security agencies, the mere existence of such a plot against a Western head of state on Indian soil sent shockwaves through the diplomatic community. It signaled that the insurgency in Punjab was no longer a localized law-and-order problem but had metastasized into a global security concern.

To prevent violent clashes due to the proximity of the two Saturday fairs, the Khargram Panchayat Samity mandated that the Sherpur fair move to Fridays. The organizers challenged this, arguing the Panchayat only had licensing, not scheduling, powers under the West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973.

Failing to respond to a notice issued under Section 114(2), or providing deliberately false information, is a distinct offense under Malaysian law.

The onus lies on the claimant to prove a breach of duty. Mere dissatisfaction with a result does not equate to professional misconduct or negligence.

: The section clause of a Malaysian parliamentary act.

Ignoring the notice turns a straightforward traffic query into a failure-to-comply charge, resulting in steep court fines.

The highly specific string directly corresponds to one of the most critical legal frameworks used by Malaysian law enforcement and traffic courts: Seksyen 42(1) Akta Pengangkutan Jalan (APJ) 1987 (Section 42(1) of the Road Transport Act 1987) . The "1142" within police and legal jargon frequently cross-references specialized enforcement squads—such as the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) traffic division's Skuad 42 —tasked exclusively with curbing reckless driving and illegal street racing.

: The requirement isn't limited only to the owner. Any other person who was in charge of the vehicle or has information that could lead to the identification of the driver must also comply.

This case is frequently cited by lawyers and judges to argue for the "condonation of delay" (forgiving a late filing) so that a case can be decided on its actual merits rather than being dismissed on a technicality. Indian Kanoon Alternative Context: Swedish Regulation (1987:1142)

: Codes of conduct, speed limits, and reckless behavior handling.

The reference "1 SEK 1142 APJ 1987" is a legal citation for the Indian Supreme Court case

: The Khargram Panchayat Samity attempted to resolve the conflict by specifying different days for each fair. The Legal Question : Does a local authority have the power to specify the

In this specific legal challenge:

This article explores the background, legal issues, judgment, and lasting impact of this landmark 1987 citation. 1. Context and Background: The Need for Regulation

The Road Transport Act 1987 is the primary legislation governing motor vehicles, traffic regulations, and road safety in Malaysia. It was enacted to: and traffic flow on public roads.