Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1989)2GLR1222
R.C. Mankad, J.1. Petitioner, a retired Chairman of the Gujarat Public Service Commission ('Commission' for short) has to knock the doors of this Court to seek redress against the injustice done to him by the State of Gujarat-respondent No. 1 herein by refusing to pay to him pension in accordance with the amended Gujarat Public Service Commission (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1960.2. Petitioner was appointed as Chairman of the Commission under Government Notification No. PSC/1065/5704-G dated June 30, 1967 and he took charge of his office on July 4, 1967. The petitioner, on completion of 60 years of age, which was the age of superannuation, retired from service with effect from June 11, 1971 after serving for more than three years. The period of service qualifying for pension on the date of retirement of the petitioner was 3 years 10 months and 25 days. Under Government Resolution No. PSC/1671/ 1314-R dated April 5, 1971 one month and six days have been added to the aforesaid pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1990Guj65; (1990)1GLR223
ORDER1. Petitioner No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), who has passed Higher Secondary School Examination, ('Examination' for short) in Science stream held in March 1988 by the Gujarat Secondary Education Board, has filed this petition seeking direction against the respondents to give her admission in one of the Government Medical Colleges in Gujarat or in Pramukh Swami Medical College at Karamsad.2. The Government of Gujarat in Health and Family Welfare Department has framed Rules for admission to 1st M.B.B.S./1st BDS 1st B.Physio Courses at the Govern merit Medical Colleges and, Government Dental College, Ahmedabad. These Rules are operative for State quota of seats, which is to be calculated after deduction of 15% seats reserved for candidates selected on the basis of the result of All India Competitive Entrance Examination as per the judgment of the Supreme Court. The examination passed by the petitioner is one of the qualifying examinations for admission to the afor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1990CriLJ1341; (1989)2GLR201
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. The mother of the condemned prisoner, who is the petitioner herein has filed this Special Criminal Application under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Articles 14 and 21 for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing His Excellency the President of India to consider again the Mercy Petitions of the convict dated 7-8-1982, 18-10-1985 and 10-5-1989 preferred by the petitioner in the light of the judgment of Kerharsingh reported in 1989 (1) SCC 204. Consequently, the prayer for staying the execution and implementation of the order of hanging the accused Shashikant Keshavlal Parmar to death scheduled on 23-6-1989 at 7-00 a.m. at Rajkot District Jail is prayed for. The petitioner had earlier filed Special Criminal Application No. 1286 of 1988 praying the very same relief, but in relation to the Mercy Petition dated 18-10-1985. There also, the petitioner had prayed that until the President of India decides the M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1990Guj182
Majmudar, J.1. This appeal under clause XV of the, Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 3-10-1978 passed by P. D. Desai, J. (as he then was) summarily rejecting special civil application No. 1965 of 1978. The said petition in its turn was directed against the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal dated 27-7-1978 passed in exercise of its powers under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (The Tenancy Act for short). The appellants who were the original petitioners before the learned single Judge contended that they were tenants of the land S.No. 494 admeasuring 3 acres 31 gunthas situated at village Untdi in Bulsar taluka of Bulsar district. Their contention was accepted by the Mamlatdar in the proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act. However, in appeal before the Assistant Collector, the appellants lost and the Assistant Collector took the view that the appellants were not tenants of the land in question. That decision of the Ass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1990CriLJ2758
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. This petition was heard earlier by a Division Bench consisting of our learned brothers S.B. Majmudar and V.H. Bhairavia, JJ. on 2.5.1989. At that time various points were raised but only one point was pressed and other points were given up. The point that was raised on behalf of the petitioner was that after the petitioner was heard by the Advisory Board on 29.7.1988, he had sent a representation to the Board on 2.8.88. The said representation was received by the Board on 3.8.1988 but it had sent its report giving opinion against the detenu on 6.8.1988 without considering the representation and therefore, the continued detention of the petitioner should be regarded as illegal. In view of this contention, the Division Bench had issued notice to the Advisory Board. On 5.5.1989 Mr. M.D. Pandya, Public Prosecutor appeared for the Advisory Board and made a statement that after hearing the detenu on 29.7.1988 the Board had alredy taken a decision on that day and only writ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1991(54)ELT61(Guj); (1989)2GLR384
Ravani, J.1. The petitioner has been detained under the provisions of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1989 (for short 'PASA') pursuant to order dated September 21, 1988 passed by the detaining authority (District Magistrate, Junagadh) inter alia on the grounds that he is a 'boot-legger' within the meaning of term defined under the PASA and his activity as 'boot-legger' was prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 2. In the grounds of detention served upon the petitioner, it is disclosed that there were in all 23 criminal cases against the petitioner during the years 1984 to 1988. Out of the 23 cases, 12 cases were pertaining to the storage, sale and/or consumption of prohibited liquor registered under the provisions of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Out of these 12 cases he was acquitted in 5 cases and other cases were pending in the court. Over and above the aforesaid criminal cases, the detaining authority has relied upon the statements of five witness...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1989)2GLR1319
P.R. Gokulakrishnan, C.J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge, dismissing the Special Civil Application No. 220S of 1989. In that Special Civil Application, the petitioner No. 1, which is an Association of Anjar Bullion Merchants and petitioner No. 2 who is a member of the said Association and who is a bullion merchant dealing in gold and silver, questioned the orders passed by the Chief Officer, Anjar Municipality, demanding octroi on gold and silver bars and its ornaments. Various contentions were raised before learned single Judge as to the legality of the levy of octroi on gold and stiver, bringing those items under the residuary clause. The learned single Judge, after meeting all the points has dismissed the Special Civil Application, holding That the levy of octroi is valid and legal.2. Mr. H.B. Shah, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, petitioners, contended before us That other Municipalities are not levying octroi on gold...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : 1991CriLJ1269; (1989)2GLR482
M.B. Shah, J.1. By the judgment and order dated 18th January 1984 the Special Judge, Valsad at Navsari, has convicted the appellant for the offences punishable Under Section 161 of the I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has ordered him to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, R.I. for three months.2. It is the prosecution case that the accused Babarali Ahmedali Saiyad was serving at Vapi in S.T. Corporation, Gujarat, as Depot Manager. The complainant Shankerbhai Kakadiabhai Purohit was working as S.T. Bus Conductor under Vapi Depot. Against him a departmental enquiry for an incident dated 9th November 1982 for not issuing tickets to two Adivasi passengers was pending. For the said incident Traffic Inspector Mr. P.H. Koli checked the S.T. bus at Silvasa on 9th November 1982. The Traffic Inspector found that there were two passengers without ticket. From them he collected the ticket charges and also fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1990Guj131; (1990)2GLR744
ORDER1. Petitioner, who is an occupant of the cabin constructed by him with the permission of the respondent No.3 Bhuj Municipality has by this writ petition prayed for a direction to the respondents to rebuild the cabin of the petitioner bearing Municipal Shop No. 3/1 situated near Vaniawad Naka at Bhuj,16 as according to the petitioner, he respondent No. 2 Assistant Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhuj illegally and unauthorisedly removed the cabin in exercise of the powers under Section 133, Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner was granted the land admeasuring about 7 Ft. X 41/2 Ft. and on which the petitioner had constructed a platform and was running a Pan Shop, but subsequently in the year 1980, with the permission of the respondent No. 3 Bhuj Municipality, he constructed the cabin on that land, having the bricks wall on one side and was carrying his business of Peppermint, biscuits etc. in it and the last rent was paid by the petitioner on November 15, 1988, for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1990Guj184; (1989)2GLR663
Gokulakrishnan, C.J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is against the order passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing Special Civil Application No. 3862 of 1989. In the Special Civil Application, the appellant herein has prayed for quashing the orders of the Authorities concerned, which are at Annexures 'A' and 'B' to the Special Civil Application and has prayed for accepting his nomination paper for the post of Sarpanch of Kapadiali Gram Panchayat. It is clear, from the facts of the case that the election process has started and the Returning Officer has rejected the nomination paper of the appellant herein after scrutiny of nominations as per Rule 10 of the Gujarat Grain and Nagar Panchayats Election Rules, 1962. The rejection is on the ground that the appellant has mentioned that his name is at serial No. 107 of the Voters' List while, as a matter of fact; it is J at serial No. 40. Thus, it is clear from the facts alleged that the appellant wants to put forth his case on the ground...
Tag this Judgment!