Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)120PLR239
N.K. Aggarwal, J.1. This is a petition by Smt. Budho Devi and Dharamvir Jain under Article 226/227 of the Constitution for quashing the notice dated 17.4.1997, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Ferozepur Jhirka, to petitioner No. 2 (Dharamvir Jain), asking him to attend a meeting of the Municipal Committee convened on 2.5.1997 to consider the 'no confidence motion'. The petitioner have also sought a writ of prohibition for restraining the respondents No. 9 and 10 (Niranjan Lal and Smt. Sarti Devi respectively) from attending the meeting.2. Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Budho Devi was elected as President of the Municipal Committee. On a requisition submitted by certain members of the Municipal Committee, the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon authorised S.D.O. (C), Ferozepur Jhirka, to convene a special meeting of the Municipal Committee to consider the 'no confidence motion' against petitioner No. 1 Smt. Budho Devi. The petitioner No. 1, thereafter, informed the Deputy Commissioner thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)117PLR261
M.S. Liberhan, J.1. This order will dispose of civil writ petition Nos. 3259, 7290, 11969, 13312, 13425, 13437, 13552, 14000, 14016, 14105, 14167 14311 14167 14311 , 14500, 14547, 15220, 15316, 15317, 15925, 15959, 16514, 17098 17370 17371 17877, 18249, 18365 of 1994 and 123 and 315 of 1995 and 19828 of 1996 also.2. The principal issue involved in these writ petitions is as to whether the respondents can demand additional price from the allottees of residential plots in various Sectors of Mohali, and if so, whether the additional price to be charged from the plot-holders can be fixed without granting an opportunity of hearing.3. In order to determine the issue raised, brief exordium of facts as emerged runs thus.-The petitioners were allotted plots in various sectors of Mohali from time to time since the year 1983 till date on the tentative price assessed by respondent in consultation with the State.4. At this stage, it would be expedient to notice the relevant condition of allotment w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)117PLR659
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the notices issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority requiring them to pay enhanced compensation in respect of plots allotted to them by respondent No. 1. Since the issue raised in all the cases is identical, we are deciding these petitions by a common order.2. FACTS:CWP No. 13460 of 1992. - In response to the notice issued by respondent No. 1 inviting applications for allotment of residential plots, the petitioner applied for allotment of one kanal plot. Vide Annexure P- 1 dated 11.9.1984, respondent No. 2 communicated the petitioner allotment of Plot No. 321, Sector 4 at Mansa Devi Urban Complex. As per para 9 of the allotment letter price of the plot was stated to be tentative with a stipulation that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately. The petitioner, had deposited Rs. 11,051/- on 8.2.19,84 and another sum of Rs. 1,6,576...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)119PLR292
N.C. Jain, J.1. This judgment of ours would dispose of Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 670, 693, 708 to 716 of 1985, 455, 456, 238 of 1986 and 829, 1394 to 1397 of 1991 as they arise out of common award of the Land Acquisition Court and common judgment given by the learned Single Judge.2. In order to appreciate the question involved herein, it is necessary to have a look at the facts of the case. A big chunk of land measuring 205 Acres, 5 Kanals and 15 Marlassituated within the revenue estate of Kherpur on the outskirts of Sirsa town was acquired by the Haryana Government in pursuance of the notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as the 'Act') on April 14, 1976 for the construction of Mini Secretariat, Police Lines and Housing Colony. It appears to us and as was not disputed during the course of arguments that the necessity for acquiring the disputed land arose on account of Sirsa town having been made a district headquarter with effect from 1.9.1975....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)ILLJ186P& H; (1997)116PLR767
S.C. Malte, J. 1. The petitioner was employed with respondent No. 2. At the relevant time, he was performing a job of inspection and testing of hydraulic pump. He was drawing wages at the rate of Rs. 10.69 per day. The employment of the petitioner came to be terminated by notice dated September 15, 1976 on the ground that he had absented from duty with effect from September 3, 1976 to September 15, 1976 without any intimation to office. The termination of employment was on the ground that the petitioner has thus left his employment of his own accord and his name was struck off from the rolls, as per Clause 27 (1) of the Certified Standing Order of the factory. By the same notice, the petitioner was advised to collect all the legal dues from the accounts department of the factory on any working day. The petitioner made a grievance regarding his termination. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which eventually came to be reffered for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Fari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)117PLR60
N.K. Kapoor, J.1. This is petition for review of judgment dated 20.5.19%. Special Leave Petition was filed but the same was withdrawn with a liberty to approach this court in a review petition. The apex Court accordingly dismissed the petition as withdrawn and permitted the petitioner to approach this court within a period of thirty days from the passing of the order and in case he fried such a petition within the stipulated period, question of limitation shall not be raised.2. Petitioner has sought review of judgment dated 20.5.1996 on the following grounds (i) that whereas it is not necessary to have reduced in writing the exchange of land in the State of Punjab but in Jammu and Kashmir exchange of land without writing is not permissible. Since there was no written document with regard to exchange of land in Jammu & Kashmir, judgment dated 20.5.1996 suffers from this infirmity, (ii) the provisions of Transfers of Property Act are not applicable to the State of Punjab and so on this g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1997)117PLR467
S.C. Malte, J. 1. This judgment will also dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 4308 of 1981 (Om Parkash Puri v. The Municipal Corporation) No. 4889 of 984 (Rameshwar Dass v. Commissioner), No. 5267 of 1984 (Mulkh Raj Wadhawan v. Commissioner), No. 426 of 1985 (M/s Nand Kishore Chaman Lal v. The Commissioner) No. 1603 of 1985 (Surjit Singh v. Commissioner) and No. 1773 of 1985 (Harbhajan Singh v. Municipal Corporation). In all these matters the question raised pertains to the fixing of annual rateable value of the properties in cases where the location of the property situated is governed by the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4889 of 1984 and 1773 of 1985 are the matters in which the assessment of the rental value of the property has been ascertained under the provisions of Section 66 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4308 of 1981, 426 of 1985 and 5256 of 1984 are the matters in which the assessment of the annual rateable v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1998P& H76; (1997)117PLR73
N.K. Agrawal, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, seeking a direction to the respondents (The State of Punjab and its officers) to treat all drug-manufacturers at par without putting any arbitrary conditions as have mentioned in the tender form for the supply of drugs to the Government.2. The petitioner, the Punjab Drug Manufacturers Association, is a registered organisation of the manufacturers of drugs in the State of Punjab. The Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab (respondent No. 3), circulated tender forms inviting quotations for the supply of certain medicines and drugs to the Government hospitals and dispensaries in the State of Punjab. The conditions mentioned in the tender form are alleged to be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has alleged that the conditions have been incorporated in the tender form so as to make only the multinational drug manufacturing companies eligible fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1998)118PLR32
Iqbal Singh, J.1. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition 6597 of 1986, 6180 of 1987 and 5753 of 1989 as these are between the same parties and question involved therein is identical. The facts are being taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 6597 of 1986.2. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm of which petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Partner. It owns a factory situated at Faridabad in the State of Haryana for the manufacture of gas cylinders and washing machines. The gas cylinders are manufactured by the firm for sale as also on job contract basis. The job contract for the manufacture of gas cylinders is entered into with the petitioner-firm by various Oil Corporations, such as Indian Oil Corporation, Bharat Petroleum, Hindustan Petroleum etc. etc. The petitioner-firm is registered Under Section 7 of the Central sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner started making inter-State purchases of various raw materials and consumable stores required f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1999ACJ61
V.K. Bali, J.1. This appeal has been Corpn. against the award dated 4.2.1989 preferred by the Pepsu Road Transport passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana. Obviously, prayer in the appeal is to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal whereby the widow, three minor children and widowed mother of the deceased Hans Raj were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,72,000 in the proportion as mentioned by the Tribunal in para 28 of the judgment.2. There is no need at all to give detailed facts even though in the present appeal findings on issue regarding negligence have also been challenged. In same accident whereas two persons died, the third suffered injuries. Consequently, three claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and which were concededly disposed of by a common order. With regard to two other matters, i.e., one of death and other of injuries, no appeal has been filed by P.R.T.C. The findings recorded in the claim petitions giving r...
Tag this Judgment!