Mumbai Goa Court June 2013 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal and Others Vs. Ministry of Environment an ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-12-2013
A.P. Lavande, J. Heard Mr. D. Khambatta, Mr. D. Mehta, Mr. N. Sardessai, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C. A. Ferreira, learned Asst. Solicitor General and Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for the respondents. 2. All the four writ petitions are being disposed of by common judgment since the issues involved in all these petitions are almost identical. 3. For the sake of convenience, we shall deal with the facts in Writ Petition No.685/2012 since the arguments which have been advanced in this petition by learned Senior Advocate Mr. D. Khambatta, have been adopted by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in other writ petitions. 4. The petitioners, in Writ Petition No. 685/2012, are engaged in mining activities. It is the case of the petitioners that the mine is situated at a distance of about 1.22 kms. from Bhagwan Mahaveer Wildlife Sanctuary. On 15th December, 1995, respondent No.1 granted permission for diversion of forest land for mining lease under...
Smt. Baby Anumanta Chandawa and Another Vs. the State of Goa, Through ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-12-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. Heard Mr. S. M. Walwaikar and Mr. J. Godinho, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondents. 2. Both the above petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment since issues involved and the reliefs claimed in both are the same. 3. By these petitions, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs: (a) For a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the decision dated 20/12/2005 of the review D.P.C. (b) For a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to follow the law declared by this Court in the matter of Ashok Redkar and Ors (supra) and to consider the petitioners to the post of Ward Sister by reviewing the decision of respondent no. 2 taken on 20/12/2005. 4. The petitioners belong to the reserved category of Scheduled Castes. The petitioners joined Goa Medical College as Staff Nurses. The petitioner of Writ Petition No. 237/2006 joined on...
Bahujan Samaj Educational and Cultural Forum Represented Through Its P ...
Court: Mumbai Goa
Decided on: Jun-11-2013
U.V. Bakre, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lawande, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General, on behalf of the respondents in both the petitions. 2. By these Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought following reliefs: (a) Grant a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondent no. 2 to follow the law enunciated by the Supreme Court and complete the admission process based on the examination GCET 2012 by preparing a single merit list of all the candidates including, if any, OBC candidate in merit list and grant admissions on the basis of the merit without adjusting them in reserved category candidate who qualify in the general category on their merits and grant the admissions to the OBC candidates (to the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 27/2013) who are the less meritorious candidates of the OBC rese...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›