Gujarat Court December 1988 Judgments
Roshanbibi Mohmadkhan Pathan Vs. Commr. of Police and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-30-1988
Reported in: 1990CriLJ204
S.B. Majmudar, J. 1. The petitioner who is detained under the provisions of Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (the PASAA for short) by an order dated 20-4-1988 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City has brought in challenge the said order on diverse grounds. The petitioner was taken in custody on the same day and was furnished the grounds of detention of even date. At the time of final hearing of this petition, Mr. Kapadia for the petitioner raised the following contentions : --(1) That the detaining authority has arrived at his subjective satisfaction without application of mind inasmuch as he has mentioned in the grounds of detention that he was satisfied that there was imminent need to prevent the petitioner as steps against her under any other law had no effect on her and she had continued her bootlegging activities. That the said statement in the grounds of detention shows complete non-application of mind inasmuch as the earlier paragraphs of the gro...
Tag this Judgment!N.N. Patel Vs. Regional Manager, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-29-1988
Reported in: (1989)2GLR844
M.B. Shah, J.1. Petitioner who was an officer of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur has filed this petition praying that the order refusing extension in senvice to the petitioner passed by the respondent-Bank be quashed and set aside With regard to his prayer that the order of compulsory retirement be quashed and set aside, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner agrees that the petitioner was not compulsorily retired but extension in service was not given to him.2. In any view, no direction can be given to the Bank for extending the services of the petitioner. It is the sole discretion of the employer. State or otherwise. This point is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Ors. v. Jag Mohan Lal, reported in 1988 (2) Bank CLR 529. Hence, there is no substance in this petition.3. The Supreme Court has held that an employee has no right to remain in service beyond the age of superannuation and, therefore, he cann...
Tag this Judgment!Rasiklal Damjibhai and anr. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-28-1988
Reported in: (1989)2GLR1229
R.J. Shah, J.1. Appellants herein filed Special Civil Application No. 6747 of 1988, challenging the alleged arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents, their agents and servants in detaining and seizing their motor vehicles in the purported exercise of the powers under Section 129A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. 4 of 1939) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for the sake of brevity). Said petition came to be rejected by a single Judge of this Court by order dated 13-10-1988. Being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, the appellants have come by way of this Letters Patent Appeal.2. Appellant No. 1, who is the registered owner of two luxury buses, obtained special permits as contemplated under Section 63(6) of the Act. Appellant No. 2 is the registered owner of five vehicles, out of which for one vehicle he holds AH India Tourist Permit. So far as the remaining four vehicles are concerned. Appellant No. 2 also obtained special permits under Section 63(6) of the Act....
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedabad Gaila Lari Union Vs. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-27-1988
Reported in: (1989)2GLR981
A.P. Ravani, J.1. This review application arises out of an order dated April 29, 1988 dismissing Appeal From Order No. 41 of 1988 and other allied matters. The applicants filed a civil suit in the City Civil Court. Ahmedabad challenging the legality and validity of the operation of the Scheme framed by the Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and removing the applicants from their places where they are carrying on business on pavements, foot-paths and other public places. The applicants-plaintiffs had taken out a notice of motion for interim relief praying that pending the hearing and final decision of the suit, the respondents be restrained from removing the applicants from the places where they are carrying on their business on pavements, footpaths and other places. The notice of motion has been dismissed by trial Court. Appeal From Order against that order has also been dismissed by me as per order dated April, 29, 1988. This application is for review of the order dismissin...
Tag this Judgment!Saurashtra Auto Rickshaw Drivers Association Vs. State of Gujarat and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-26-1988
Reported in: (1989)2GLR921
P.R Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Special Civil Application questions the impugned order dated 4th November, 1988 (Annexure 'A' to the petition). By the said impugned order, the Collector, Rajkot, with a view to make a proper and equitable distribution of kerosene, has stated that any person holding, controlling or using the auto rickshaw shall not use kerosene as a fuel to furnish motor power to the rickshaw nor shall be manage to use or shall not allow anybody to use in such manner. No person shall use kerosene for running rickshaw. The said order of the Collector was passed under Section (Clause) 25 of the Gujarat Essential Commodities (Licence, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981. The petitioner questions the vires of Section (Clause) 25 of the said order, on the ground that there is no guideline or safeguard in this Section (Clause), and as such the authority using the power under this Section (Clause), be restrained. It is further stated that the order in question was issued...
Tag this Judgment!K.N. Thanaki and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-21-1988
Reported in: (1989)2GLR1238
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The petitioners in all these petitions are work-charged employees. The question which they have raised in these petitions is with respect to the status and right to be absorbed on completion of five years' service.2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that even though they had completed five years' service as workcharged employees, they are not treated as temporary Government servants and are not given all the benefits on that basis. It is submitted that continuing the employees on workcharge establishment eventhough they had completed more than five years' service, is illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is also the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to the status of temporary or permanent Govt, servants in view of the Resolution No. PAS/5575/(45)/C dated 8-1-1976.3. In response to the rule issued by this Court, the respondents have filed their reply affidavits and therein, they have pointed out that the Government is...
Tag this Judgment!Amreli District Panchayat Vs. Deputy District Development Officer and ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-20-1988
Reported in: (1989)2GLR1152
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Common question which arises for my consideration in these three petitions is whether clerks, who are senior to clerks who were working on work-charge establishments prior to their appointment on regular establishments were entitled to stepping up of their pay under Government Resolution dated May, 8 1970 and July 3, 1972 annexed to the petitions.2. Rules called Gujarat Panchayats (Classification and Recruitment) Rules, 1961 provide for appointments to the post of clerks. One of the modes of appointment to the post of clerk is by direct selection through a Selection Committee on the result of competitive examination held by the Selection Committee. Each Panchayat has more than one establishments. Two of such establishments are regular establishment and work-charge establishment. Work-charge establishment is created for a particular work or project and the employees who work on such establishment are not regular employees of the Panchayat. The employees on the work-cha...
Tag this Judgment!Karsanbhai R. Patel Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and anr.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-19-1988
Reported in: (1989)2GLR782
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. Rule in all these pennons. In this group of petitions, a question of considerable importance arises as followsIs it mandatory on the part of the State Government to remove the Municipal Commissioner from office forthwith in view of Section 36(3) of the Bomhay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act. 1949, if at a meeting of the Corporation not less than five-eighth of the whole number of councillors vote in favour of a resolution requiring his removal2. As common questions were involved, the petitions have been heard together and the same are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. Special Civil Applications Nos. 5778 of 1988 and 5891 of 1988 are more or less similar and the reliefs prayed therein are also similar. The same so far as are relevant for the present purpose are as under:Special Civil Application No. 5778 of 1988:12(1) that writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setti...
Tag this Judgment!Parshottambhai Premjibhai Patelia Vs. Superintending Engineer, Gujarat ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-14-1988
Reported in: (1989)2GLR830
M.B. Shah, J.1. The petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant with the Gujarat Electricity Board. At the relevant time he was serving at Kapadwanj. Against him F.I.R. is lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been suspended by an order dated 9-2-1986 pending departmental enquiry. Thereafter the respondent initiated departmental-enquiry against the petitioner for which charge-sheet was given on 22nd May 1987. The petitioner relied that as be was mentally not well, therefore be was not in a position to reply to the said show cause notice and one month's time be granted to him for submitting reply. That letter is Annexure 'F' to this petition. Again by letter dated 27-6-1987 he asked for further time. Thereafter the petitioner has filed this petition wherein it has been prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed not to hold any departmental enquiry against the petitioner on the basis of the charge-sheet Annexure 'C'...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. Vs. Sikka Digvijaygram, Joint Nagar ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Dec-12-1988
Reported in: (1989)2GLR725
M.B. Shah, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 24th March, 1986 passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge. (S.D.), Jamnagar, below Ex. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 171 of 1985, the Appellant Gujarat State Fertilizer Company Limited, has filed this appeal.2. The appellant has filed the aforesaid suit before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Jamanagar, seeking relief of declaration that it is entitled to exemption from payment of octroi duty and also for a permanent injunction restraining the Sikka Digvijay Gram Joint Nagar Panchayat, Sikka and its agents or the Ijardars to whom the contract for recovery of octroi is given by the Panchayat from recovering the octroi. The plaintiff-company has started a project to put up the plant for manufacturing Di-Ammonium Phosphate Fertilizer. The project envisages putting up a plant for manufacture of the said product and a part of this project, namely Ammonia Storage Tank and storage facilities for phosphates, etc. which are to be...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »