Gujarat Court February 2003 Judgments
P.M. Pathak Vs. Collector
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-06-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR852
K.A. Puj, J. 1. These two petitions are filed by two different petitioners against the common judgement and order passed by the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal on 22nd March, 1991 in Appeal Nos. 524/1989 and 586/1989, whereby the appeals filed by the present petitioners were dismissed. The tribunal has enhanced the punishment from stoppage of one increment without future effect to stoppage of two increments of both the petitioners with future effect. 2) Since the common issue is involved in both the petitions and since the order under challenge is common, both these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgement. 3) It is the case of the petitioners that the disciplinary authority i.e. respondent No.1 has passed an order dated 2-9-1989 imposing penalty of stoppage of one increment of the petitioners without future effect. The petitioners have challenged the said order before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal under the provisions of Section 11 of the Gujarat Civil Services T...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Yashvant Ramekar Vs. Sureshbhai Nathalal Parikh and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1256
B.J. Shethna, J. 1. The appellant-original complainant Gangadhar Yashvant Rumekar, Food Inspector of Baroda Municipal Corporation, has challenged in this Appeal the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 25-8-1989 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class (Municipal), Vadodara, in Criminal Case No. 4816 of 1983 whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents for the offences under Sections 7(1) read with Section 16(1)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (for short 'the Act'). 2. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents-accused on several grounds. One of the grounds was that sanction accorded by the Sanctioning Authority was defective. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate can be confirmed on all the grounds or any of the grounds assigned by the learned Magistrate in his impugned judgment and order. In the instant case, I am fully satisfied that there was total non-application of mind on the part of the Food Insp...
Tag this Judgment!R.P. Yadav Vs. District Superintendent of Police and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)2GLR1617
K.R. Vyas, J.1. The petitioner, Shri R. P. Yadav, in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 25-5-1988 by which the petitioner is reverted to the post of Police Sub-Inspector from Police Inspector. It may be stated that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Police Inspector on 27-5-1988. Thus, the order of promotion dated 27-5-1988 is cancelled within two days and the petitioner is reverted. The petitioner has challenged the said order at Annexure-A as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it is highly unjust, unreasonable and discriminatory.2. It is averred in the petition that the order of promotion is sought to be cancelled on the ground that an inquiry by the Anti-Corruption Bureau is pending against the petitioner; that without giving any opportunity of explaining the case, the order of reversion is passed; that the same amounts to penal action by the respondents, and therefore, the impugned order ...
Tag this Judgment!Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Ishwarbhai Madhabhai Pate ...
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-05-2003
Reported in: (2003)4GLR271
Ravi R. Tripathi, J. 1. RULE. Mr. Prabhakar Upadhyay, the learned advocate waives service of rule. With the consent of the learned advocates the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. The present petition is filed by Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') being aggrieved of an order dated 6.9.2002 passed by the Conciliation Officer & Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad below Approval Application No.214 of 2002 under section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Conciliation Officer was pleased to refuse to accord approval to the order passed by the petitioner corporation bearing no.DC/ HMT/ TR/ D/ 258/ 01/ 130 dated 16.5.2002. The facts of the case are that the respondent workman who was serving as Conductor with the petitioner corporation misbehaved with a passenger on 16.3.2001 while on duty on the route of Idar-Bombay. As the facts are on record one passenger, Chandra Vijaysinh L. Jetavat had reservation of seats no. ...
Tag this Judgment!Govindbhai Hirabhai Surati and ors. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Guj200; (2003)2GLR950
D.S. Sinha, C.J. 1. Paid extensive homage to the right of audience of Mr. K.K. Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, and suffered his incoherent, cluttered, misconceived and confusing arguments, and availed the valuable assistance of Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Advocate General of the State of Gujarat, Mr. Prashant G. Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of City of Surat, the respondent No. 2, and Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Government Pleader representing the respondent No. 3. 2. By means of instant Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners pray for the grant of following three principal reliefs delineated by alphabets (B), (C) & (D) : '(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ in nature of certioraris or a Writ in nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/s, order/s or direction/s declaring Section 48A of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 as substituted vide ...
Tag this Judgment!R.R. Trivedi Education Trust Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.
Court: Gujarat
Decided on: Feb-04-2003
Reported in: AIR2003Guj240
ORDERR.M. Doshit, J. 1. The petitioner before this Court is an educational trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust'). The Trust has been running a secondary school since the year 1967. Upon introduction of the higher secondary school (i.e. grouping of Standards XI and XII as higher secondary), in the year 1976, the Trust had been permitted to establish a higher secondary school in the general stream. Thus, the Trust has been running higher secondary school since the year 1976 and offers courses in general stream. In the year 1991, the petitioner applied for opening classes of higher secondary school in science stream also. The permission to open classes in science stream was granted on 17th August, 1991. Thus, the Trust has been offering courses in science stream in higher secondary since the academic year 1991-92. The question is that of the grant.2. According to the respondent Authorities, the Trust can be said to have started ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›