Guwahati Court January 2006 Judgments

Rock International Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. All the writ petitions having raised common questions of law on more or less similar facts were considered together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. The petitioners in each of the cases are contractors who had entered into separate agreements with the N.F. Railways for supply of diverse quantities of river boulders of particular weight, i.e., between 40 Kg. to 70 Kg required in connection with the construction of the Bogibeel Bridge over the river Brahmaputra. The aforesaid contracts visualised that the boulders to be supplied by the petitioners were to be staked at the site of the Bogibeel Bridge in Dhemaji District of the State of Assam, situated on the North Bank of river Brahmaputra. The several conditions attached to the contract, particularly the special conditions, visualized that boulders of the specified size and weight are available in certain river quarries situated in Arunachal Pradesh from where the contractors may procure ...

Abdul Kalam Borbhuya Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: (2006)2GLR367

1. This appeal by the unsuccessful writ petitioner has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5824/2003 dismissing the writ petition wherein the orders dated 30.6.1999 and 19.8.1999 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar, respectively, terminating the services of the writ petitioner were challenged.2. The facts in brief is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in No. 856 Digorkhal L.P. School by the Deputy Inspector of * Schools, Silchar vide order dated 30.10.1990, without there being any advertisement and selection as required under the Rules. As the petitioner was not paid his salaries pursuant to the said appointment, a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 127/94 was filed by him which was disposed of vide order dated 26.11.1998 with a direction to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Cachar, Silchar and the Block Elementary Education Officer, Kat...

Smt. Ningthemcha Ongbi Shakhenbi Devi Vs. State of Manipur and ors.

Court: Guwahati

T. Nandakumar Singh, J.1. The Supreme Court and the High Courts being the protectors of the civil liberties of the citizen, have not only the power and jurisdiction but also obligation to grant relief in exercise of their jurisdictions under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India to the victims or heirs of the victims whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are established to have been flagrantly infringed by calling upon the state to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the citizens, notwithstanding the right of the citizens to the remedy by way of civil suit or criminal proceedings. Basing on these principles of law, petitioner filed the present writ petition praying for monetary compensation for unjustified killing of her son, late R.K. Laksana @ Vito Singh by the personnel of the Manipur Police Commando Unit under the private respondent No. 6 (i.e. Shri Pebam John Singh, S. I.) while he (R. K. Laksana @ Vito S...

Kishore Kalita Vs. Brahmaputra Board and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Amitava Roy, J.1. The appointments of respondent No(s). 7 and 8 as Assistant Engineers with the Brahmaputra Board (hereafter referred to as the Board) are under challenge. The contention of the petitioner in essence is that he having fared much better than the said respondents in the written examination, their selection only on the basis of the relatively higher marks obtained by them in the interview is unsustainable in law.2. I have heard Mr. P.G. Baruah, senior advocate for the petitioner, Mr. D. Choudhury, advocate for the respondent No. 7 and Mr. D Baruah, learned Standing Counsel for the Board.3. First the pleaded facts. The petitioner, an Engineering Graduate in the Civil discipline, in response to the advertisement published by the Board on 10.9.2003 for filling up two posts of Assistant Engineer, offered his candidature. He thereafter pursuant to the letter dated 6.2.2004 appeared in the written test and obtained 97 per cent marks. According to him, the respondent Nos. 7 and ...

Escorts Ltd. Vs. International Tractors Ltd. and ors.

Court: Guwahati

B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J.1. These two appeals have been filed against the same judgment of the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by the respondent/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the writ petitioner') was allowed.2. The dispute centers round purchase of 460 numbers of pneumatic wheeled agricultural tractors of not less than 25 BHP with accessories and equipments.Factual background:3. The tractors intended to be purchased through national competitive bidding is meant for development of mechanisation in the agricultural sector in the State of Assam for which purpose the Government of Assam has made a fund provision on the budget plan for the financial year 2005-06. The costs of such tractors, which are to be provided to small and marginal farmers, are to be borne in the ratio of 50 : 50 by the State and the small and marginal farmers. The process for the purchase of the tractors has been initiated by means of Invitation for Bids (IFB) dated 4.7.2005 issued by ...

Smt. Areni Lotha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Guwahati

A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Pius Lotha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Meruno, learned Assistant Solicitor General (ASG) for the Union of India as well as Mr. L. S. Jamir, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate for the State respondents.2. On 8-11-05 when this writ petition was moved challenging the notice/order dated 23-6-05 issued by the respondent No, 3. Superintendent of Police, Dimapur, Nagaland by which the husband of the petitioner Mr. Khaled Hassan Matter Abdul Razak, was informed that Protected Area Permit (PAP), issued to him, was cancelled with a direction to report to the said officer to carry out the instruction of the Govt. to deport him ordering therein itself that if he was not in Dimapur presently, he was directed not to enter Dimapur, notice of motion was issued to the respondents making the same returnable within 2 (two) weeks and the learned Counsel appearing for all the official respondents accepted those notices.3. On the prayer for consideration of pa...

Abdul Kalam Borbhuya Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court: Guwahati

Reported in: (2006)2GLR367

B.P. Katakey, J.1. This appeal by the unsuccessful writ petitioner has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 6.9.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 5824/2003 dismissing the writ petition wherein the orders dated 30.6.1999 and 19.8.1999 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar, respectively, terminating the services of the writ petitioner were challenged.2. The facts in brief is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in No. 856 Digorkhal L.P. School by the Deputy Inspector of * Schools, Silchar vide order dated 30.10.1990, without there being any advertisement and selection as required under the Rules. As the petitioner was not paid his salaries pursuant to the said appointment, a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 127/94 was filed by him which was disposed of vide order dated 26.11.1998 with a direction to the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Cachar, Silchar and the Block Elementary Educat...

Nagendra Nath Gogoi Vs. Tengapani Tea Co. Ltd.

Court: Guwahati

B.K. Sharma, J.1. By means of this revision application, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings in CR Case No. 930(c)/2004 drawn against the petitioner under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 now pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (Sadar), Tinsukia. The petitioner has also assailed the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Magistrate by which plea of the petitioner that the complaint petition filed by the complainant/respondent is not maintainable, has been rejected.2. The complainant/respondent herein filed a complaint on 29-11-2004 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia and the same was registered as CR Case No. 930(c)/2004 under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956. In the complaint, it was statedmtera/iathat the petitioner having not vacated the company quarter allotted to him during his tenure of service is liable to be prosecuted under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956 and for restoration of the pro...

Chameli Debi and ors. Vs. Dipak Nath and ors.

Court: Guwahati

A.B. Pal, J.1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.11.1995, passed by learned Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 42 of 1994 affirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Assistant District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala on 27.4.1994 in Title Suit No. 4 of 1972 whereby right, title and interest of the plaintiffs, respondents herein, in respect of the suit lands were declared with a decree for recovery of possession by evicting therefrom the defendants, appellants herein.2. The brief facts relevant for the present proceeding are that late Upendra Ch. Math was the owner of the suit land along with other lands from whom the plaintiff-respondents being his legal heirs inherited the same. It is the case of the plaintiff-respondents that late Upendra Ch. Nath allowed Jagabandhu Nath, the predecessor of the appellants herein to live on the suit land on condition to vacate the same whenever asked for by the owner. But when Jagaba...

Kuddus Mia Vs. State of Tripura and ors.

Court: Guwahati

I.A. Ansari, J.1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of both the appeals, which have arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 17.2.2003, passed in Civil Rule No. 410 of 1994.2. The writ petitioner, namely, Kuddus Miah challenged the order, dated 25.2.1994, passed by the Superintendent of Police, South Tripura, dismissing the petitioner, who was a constable, from service. By the judgment and order, dated 17.2.2003, the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, observed and directed as follows:In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of dismissal dated 25.2.1994 is hereby quashed. The petitioner be reinstated in service immediately. But the quashing of impugned order of dismissal and consequently re-instatement of the petitioner in service will not preclude the authority to continue the departmental proceeding afresh allowing all sorts of reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. So far back wages are concerned, the petitione...