Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(2)SC688; (1994)1MLJ29(SC); 1993(2)SCALE545; (1993)2SCC573
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties. Leave granted in S.L.Ps. 12608/ 92 and 16418/92.2. The appeals are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court allowing a special appeal preferred by the State of Jammu and Kashmir against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the appellants herein. The matter pertains to approval and publication of the select list of District Munsifs prepared by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission.3. On May 28, 1984 the High Court intimated the Government of ten vacancies in the category of munsifs and requested the government to initiate appropriate steps for selection of candidates. The government wrote to the public service commission and the latter issued the notification and put the process in motion. Written test was held in the year 1985. Vivo-voce was also held. At that stage, the High Court requested the government (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)47; JT1996(8)SC306; 1996(6)SCALE431; (1996)6SCC44; [1996]Supp5SCR32
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. Application for impleadment allowed.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated September 29, 1992 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in CIMA NO. 72 of 1988.4. The only question that arises for decision in this appeal is : whether the respondents are entitled to solatium and interest under the Jammu & Kashmir Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act')?5. The facts in nutshell are that land admeasuring 399 Kanals and 4 marlas situated in Villages Rampur, Talwal and Goverdhan Pain was acquired for public purposes, viz., defence, by publication of notification under Section 7 of the Act on October 16, 1986. The Deputy Commissioner, Rajouri in his award dated November 3, 1986 awarded compensation @ Rs. 21,000 in respect of lands situated in villages Rampur and Talwal and Rs. 10,000 per kanal in respect of land situated in village Goverdhan Pain with 10% escalati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(4)ALD389; 2002(4)ALT9
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. These two writ petitions are filed by the students who had appeared for the Engineering Agricultural and Medical Common Entrance Test - 2001 (EAMCET-2001) and who are aspiringfor admission in engineering courses challenging the order of the Government in G.O. Rt. No.550 Higher Education (EC2) Department dated 30-7-2001 whereby and whereunder the Government in purported implementation of the judgment of this Court dated 23-2-2000 in WP No.26404 of 1999 and WA No.795 of 2000 and batch and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ritesh RShah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul, : [1996]2SCR695 , issued the impugned instructions (infra) to be followed in the present EAMCET counselling started from 30-7-2001.FACTS:2. The petitioners herein had appeared in EAMCET-2001 (Engineering) and secured - 021550th, 04617th, 002168th, 021624th, 013715th, 001480th, 014259th, and 013355th- ranks respectively.3. Admissions into various Government Engineering Colleges, University Colleges, R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1995(2)BomCR317; (1995)97BOMLR909; 1995CriLJ1316
M.L. Dudhat, J.1. The important question arising for resolution in this writ petition is 'Whether there are reasonable grounds to hold that cognizable offences under sections 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter 'the Code', have been committed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by publishing articles in the newspaper 'Samna' which are at Exhs. 'A' to 'I' and 'K' to this petition. 2. Petitioner No. 1 in this case is a retired IAS Officer. Petitioner No. 2 is a founder Editor of Business India and Business World and a management consultant. They have sought a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to register crime under Section 153A and 153B, of the Code against, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. The relevant facts are as under :- 3. After the demolition of Babri Masjid, riots took place in Bombay. During that time respondent No. 3 Editor and respondent No. 4 Executive Editor of newspaper 'Samna' published edi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IVAD(SC)70; AIR1998SC1767; 1998(3)ALLMR(SC)118; 1998(3)CTC413; (1998)3GLR1862; JT1998(3)SC223; 1998(2)MPLJ1; 1998(II)OLR(SC)70; 1998(2)SCALE772; (1998)4SCC1; [1998]2SCR
G.N. Ray, J.1. In all these matters a common question arises for decision as to whether in a single cadre post reservation for the backward classes, namely, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes can be made either directly or by applying rotation of roster point. There are conflicting decisions of this Court on the question of such reservation in a single cadre post.2. The learned counsel for the parties in all these matters have agreed that the question of law as to the constitutional validity of reservation in a single cadre post is to be decided by the Constitution Bench and thereafter the cases will be placed before the appropriate Bench for disposal on merits in accordance with decision rendered by this Bench. Therefore, the question of constitutional validity of reservation in a single cadre post either directly or by rotation of roster point has been considered by us and we have not taken into consideration other contentions raised in these matters.3. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1488; JT1991(6)SC480; (1992)2MLJ28(SC); 1991(2)SCALE1398; (1992)1SCC684; [1991]Supp3SCR485; 1992(1)LC474(SC)
ORDERM.M. Punchhi and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.1. Retro-activity of some of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 68 of 1984, has been a source of good amount of conflict of opinion in this Court as well as among the High Courts in the country. We are not happy in adding to it but we find it inescapable, convinced as we are, that the view taken by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Anr. etc. etc. v. Zora Singh etc. etc. C.A. No. 4568/91 decided on 22-11-1991 requires reconsideration. We shall first state the facts in S.L.P. No. 5514 of 1990 to indicate how the question arises.2. The notification under Section 3(1) of the Kerala and Acquisition Act (corresponding to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894) was issued on 21-3-1978. Declaration under Section 6 was made on 15-5-1979. The Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) passed the award on 30-12-1980 and possession of acquired lands taken some time in 1981. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2004P& H67; (2003)135PLR348
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. In December 1988, respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement inviting applications for allotment of residential plots measuring 400, 250, 150 and 100 Square Yards in Sh. Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Development Scheme (Water Works Road), at Khanna', Distt Ludhiana. The number of plots were not advertised. In the advertisement, it was stated that the allotment would be through draw of lots. The allotment will be made strictly according to Punjab Town Improvement (Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots) Rules, 1983 as amended up to date (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). It was also provided that reservation in the categories of Schedule Castes, Backward Classes and other categories would be as per government instructions. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, petitioners No. l to 4 applied for a 400 square yards plot and deposited Rs.8000/- with the Improvement Trust Khanna (hereafter referred to as 'the Trust'). Petitioner No. 5 applied for a 250 square yards pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1992P& H13
1. The unsuccessful defendant has come up in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court reversing on appeal those of the trial judge whereby the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent for possession of the property in dispute was dismissed.2. The facts:--The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that he was a lessee of the disputed site situate within the municipal limits of Kurali, which was leased out to him under a registered lease deed dated 26-11-1970 by Surasti Gir on an annual rent of Rs. 480/-, for a period of 30 years. He was put in possession of the same. The original lessor left the temple and in his absence Sham Gir threatened to dispossess him necessitating the filing of the instant suit. He claimed that he was in possession and in case it is found otherwise, a decree for possession be passed in his favour.3. Defendant No. 1 died during the pendency of the suit. His name was deleted from the array of the parties.4. Def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1984)ACC388; AIR1984SC1244; 1984(1)SCALE709; (1984)3SCC583; [1984]3SCR522; 1984(16)LC1031(SC)
D.A Desai, J.1. The intrepid albeit affluent transport operators again succeeded in their none-too-legal designs to operate vehicles not by obtaining statutory permits but to put it mildly by abuse of the court's process.2. By a judgment rendered by this Court in S. Kannan and Ors. v. Secretary, Karnataka State Road Transport Authority etc. : [1983]3SCR740 on August 29, 1983, this Court held that grant of a temporary all-India tourist permit is foreign to the very concept of all-India tourist permit as envisaged by Sub-section (7) of Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and accordingly an unusually large number of temporary all-India tourist permits obtained pursuant to the interim relief granted by this Court were set at naught. Some of the present petitioners were directly parties to the petitions disposed of by that judgment. Indefatigueable as they are, they again approached this Court by a camouflage of challenging the validity of quota of fifty such permits fixed by the Cen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC710; 1982CriLJ340; 1981(4)SCALE1904; (1982)1SCC271; [1982]2SCR272
Chandrachud, C.J.1. This is a group of Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the National Security Ordinance, 2 of 1980, and certain provisions of the National Security Act, 65 of 1980, which replaced the Ordinance. Writ Petition No. 5724 of 1980 is by Shri A.K. Roy, a Marxist member of the Parliament, who was detained under the Ordinance by an order passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad, on the ground that he was indulging in activities which were prejudicial to public order. Ten members of the Parliament, one an Independent and the others belonging to various political parties in opposition applied for permission to intervene in the Writ Petition on the ground that since the Ordinance-making power of the President is destructive of the system of Parliamentary democracy, it is necessary to define the scope of that power. We allowed the intervention. So did we allow the applications for intervention by the People's Union of Civil Liberties...
Tag this Judgment!