Gujarat Court November 1987 Judgments
Gujarat Dalit Civil and Constitutional Rights Pratipadan Samiti and Et ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-27-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Guj197; (1988)1GLR290
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. In all these Special Civil Applications common question which is raised is as to whether Mochis (i.e. the persons belonging to Mochi Community) of Gujarat except those residing in the District of Dangs and Umbergaon Taluka (which is now apart of Bulsar District) can properly be considered to be the members of Scheduled Caste and whether the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act. 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act') in so far it deleted the entry 'In the district of Dangs and Umbergaon Taluka of Surat District - Mochi '- specified in Part IV Gujarat of the Scheduled to the Constitution (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950 and in so far as it has included 'Mochi' caste as a whole in entry No. 4 of Part IV-Gujarat in the schedule substituted by the amendment Act is ultra vires. 2. Special Civil Application No. 3432 of 1985 is filed by Gujarat Dalit Civil and Constitutional Rights Pratipadan Samiti through its Convener Shri Dahy...
Tag this Judgment!Der Punja Fogal Vs. the District Magistrate and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-1987
Reported in: 1989CriLJ233; (1988)1GLR313
A.P. Ravani, J.1. Petitioner has been detained under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by order dt. June 16, 1987 passed by the District Magistrate, Rajkot The petitioner/detenu has been arrested on the same day and the grounds of detention have been served upon him on that very day. The petitioner has been detained on the ground that he is a dangerous person inasmuch as he was involved in an offence punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 326 of the I.P.C. alleged to have taken place on July 29, 1986. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint against the detenu and other statements given by certain persons of Upleta Town, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that the petitioner was a dangerous person and his activity as such was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Hence with a view to prevent him from indulging in such activity, the order of detention has been passed and from the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Ambica Tubewell Co. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-1987
Reported in: AIR1988Guj210; (1988)1GLR432
ORDER1. The short question which arises for determination is whether a drilling rig can be said to be a 'goods vehicle' within the meaning of S. 2(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The brief facts, which are relevant to be noticed, are as under.2. The petitioner purchased a drilling rig which came to be registered with the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Mehsana, as GTF 2124 on 29th Jan., 1970. The unladen weight of the said vehicle was stated to be 12490 Kg. Pursuant to an audit objection the weight was corrected to 4500 Kg. and a notice demanding difference in tax was issued on 5th Nov. 1975. On 2nd Sept. 1977 the petitioner applied in Form B.T.I. seeking certain alterations which request was turned down on 5th Sept 1977. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the said order, Annexure 'A' to the petition, preferred an appeal, being Appeal No. 5 of 1977, which was heard and decided by the Director of Transport, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. The appella...
Tag this Judgment!State of Gujarat Vs. Bhagwanji Pitamber and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-26-1987
Reported in: (1988)1GLR445
R.A. Mehta, J.1. This is an application against the order granting bail. It is treated as an application for cancellation of bail and not as revision application.2. The learned Addl. P.P. has submitted that the offence charged against the accused is punishable under Section 302 of IPC read with Sections. 147, 148, 149, 307, 324, 323 of IPC. There are in all 29 accused and all of them have been granted bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Morvi by an order dated 27-8-1987. The State has preferred this application against the present three accused persons and submitted that these three persons have taken direct and active part in the incident resulting into the death of Lalubha. The learned Addl. P.P. has also submitted that there is great tension in the village and when all the accused were released on bail, the State had to put Special Police Force in village. He has submitted that at present that Police Force is withdrawn.3. The learned Counsel for the respondent-accused has subm...
Tag this Judgment!Vaghari Karsan Bijal Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-23-1987
Reported in: (1988)1GLR436
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application is for quashing the rules made under Section 33(1)(aa) of the Bombay Police Act, declaring the same as arbitrary and violative of Article 19 and discriminatory in character. The petitioner is aggrieved in respect of the rates fixed for carrying the doli in Palitana mountain. This fixing of the rate, according to the petitioner, is an unreasonable restriction on the occupation carried on by the petitioner and the rules made regulating this doli service is arbitrary and it has been made without and guidance or restriction reasonable for the purpose of making the petitioner and the people akin to him to carry on the business. The first contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the State Legislature has no competence to enact such rules. Section 33 of the Bombay Police Act reads as follows:33(1) The Commissioner, with respect to all or any of the following matters specified in this sub-section and the D...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendrakumar Natwarlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-1987
Reported in: (1988)1GLR283
B.S. Kapadia, J.1. The petitioner-detenu has filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus and for quashing and setting aside the order of detention dated 28-5-1987 (Annexure-A to the petition) and also for directing the respondents to set the detenu at liberty forthwith.2. Order Annexure-A is passed by the District Magistrate, Panchmahals at Godhra, under the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PASA Act') on his being satisfied that with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order it was necessary to pass an order directing the petitioner to be detained. The detenu was also supplied with the grounds of detention (copy at Annexure-B to the petition). On perusal of the grounds it appears that the petitioner is dealing in the business of transporting and selling of liquor and thereby carrying on anti-social activities. It is also ment...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-21-1987
Reported in: (1988)2GLR906
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this group of Special Civil Applications certain common questions under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') are raised any hence they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. All the petitioners are running composite textile mills in this city. They have got both the spinning and weaving departments in their Mills. In their spinning department, they manufacture yarn. This yarn is taken out from the spindles and shifted to the weaving department where it is utilised for manufacturing fabrics, the respondent authorities exercising power under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder insisted that during the relevant time while preparing the price lists of manufactured fabrics the concerned petitioners Mills companies should have included the excise duty payable by them on yarn which was earlier manufactured by them in the spinning department and which was captively consumed by them for manufacturing ...
Tag this Judgment!Dilip Dineshchand Vaidya Vs. Board of Management, Seth V.S. Hospital, ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-11-1987
Reported in: (1988)1GLR144; (1988)IILLJ473Guj
1. The petitioner who was in the year 1968 appointed as Honorary Assistant Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery at the K.M. School of Post-Graduate Medicine and Research was subsequently appointed as Professor in the same Institute and was working as such when he came to be suspended by an order dated 24th September 1987 pending departmental inquiry on the charge of prescribing mainly the drugs of Om Pharmaceutical Company to the patient taking treatment in Orthopaedic Unit-III of which the petitioner was the Head. The petitioner has challenged the said order of suspensions on various grounds. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner was working as Honorary Professor in the month of September 1987. He was on leave upto 30th September 1987. On 22nd September 1987, Dr. Surendra Patel. Shri Anilbhai Chinai and Dr. Vora who are members of the Board of Management of this institution took a round of Wards Nos. 5 and 9 of the V.S. Hospital to which...
Tag this Judgment!Lalitshanker Thakorbhai Desai and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-10-1987
Reported in: (1988)1GLR203
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Petitioners have moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the order Annexure 'I' dated February 25, 1987, rejecting their application for exemption under Section 20(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. Petitioner No. 1 holds lands admeasuring 10,143 Sq-mtrs. bearing S. No. 140 of village Majura, City Survey No. 722 and Final plot No. 59/1 of Town Planning Scheme-9. Out of these lands held by petitioner No. 1 exemption under Section 20(1) of the Act was claimed in respect of 8361 Sq-mtrs. of lands after completing sale in favour of Dhaval Co-operative Housing Society, petitioner No. 2 herein. The State Government has, by the impugned order, refused to grant exemption on the following grounds, namely, (i) the land in question was needed by the Government for public purpose; (ii) petitioners had failed to establish undue hardship to the holder; and (iii) the req...
Tag this Judgment!Perisha P. Panchal and ors. Vs. Gujarat State Civil Supplies Corpn. an ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Nov-09-1987
Reported in: (1988)1GLR128; (1993)IIILLJ100Guj
Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. Twelve petitioners in this Special Civil Application have filed this Special Civil Application for declaring that the petitioners are entitled to be treated as direct employees of the respondent-Corporation and directing the respondent-authorities to treat the petitioners as such with retrospective effect for all purposes including salary, seniority and all consequential allowances and benefits from therespective dates of their first appointment. It is not necessary to refer to the various other prayers because they all depend upon the first prayer mentioned above except the prayer with regard to quashing and setting aside the order of the Employment officer dated 20.5.1987 and further directing the Employment Officer to forward the petitioners' names to respondent No. 1-Corporation for consideration of their candidature as Assistants.2. The main contentions raised by Mr. N.J. Mehta, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, for the purpose of admission...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »