Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(3)MhLj612
A. P. Shah J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.2. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 31-10-2002 passed by the respondent No. 1 - Caste Scrutiny Committee whereby the caste certificate of the petitioner certifying that the petitioner belongs to Nomadic Tribe (Otari) has been declared as invalid. The petitioner is a Councillor of Nagpur Municipal Corporation and is presently holding the post of Dy Mayor. The petitioner had contested election for the post of Councillor from the constituency reserved for the Nomadic Tribes. The petitioner had filed his nomination form for the said constituency along with the caste certificate dated 3-7-1997 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Dy. Collector of Nagpur. The petitioner was declared elected as Councillor from the said constituency and thereafter he was elected as Dy Mayor. It appears that the 3rd respondent filed compla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(4)MhLj150
A.B. Naik, J.1. Heard. Rule. By consent of Advocates for the parties. Rule taken up for final hearing forthwith.2. This group of writ petitions arises out of a common order passed by the Collector, Jalgaon, on 3-12-2002.3. For disposal of these petitions, it is not necessary for me to refer to all the facts in detail, however, relevant facts to understand controversy in these petitions are as follows. The parties will be referred to as per their status in the Disqualification petition Nos. 1146, 1147 and 1148 of 2001.4. The petitioners and respondent Nos. 3 to 17 were elected as councillors of Municipal Council, Jalgaon. After the said elections, Municipal Council is constituted and from the facts, it appears that some of the members have parted from 'Group'/'Aghadi' which was formed at the time of general election. It is also not disputed that the provisions of Maharashtra Local Authority Members' Disqualification Act, 1966 and the Maharashtra Legal Authority Members Disqualifications...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(4)BomCR588
Deshpande D.G., J.1. This public interest writ petition is filed by the petitioners against the State of Goa and about 38 or 39 local bodies including Municipalities and Village Panchayats for fulfilling their obligatory dues under their respective Acts, for confinement and elimination of stray dogs/cattle and for preventing and checking the spread of dangerous diseases and accidents and further restraining the animal welfare organizations from interfering with the local bodies in the discharge of their statutory responsibilities and obligations and if they fail to abide by such restraint, then make them liable financially as well as legally for all the losses and sufferings of the public and for other reliefs which includes providing compensation to the victims of bites or accidents caused by stray dogs.2. This petition is opposed mainly by the intervenors who are the N.G.Os. who applied for intervention but the opposition is not to demand that the menace of the stray dogs should be c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)ALLMR64; 2003(3)BomCR858
S.A. Bobde, J.1. This petition is by tenants or agricultural land whose rights to purchase the land under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') have been interfered with by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short the 'M.R.T.') by remanding the proceedings to the Tahsildar for enabling the respondent to produce an exemption certificate, even though the matter had been remanded earlier for the same purpose, but to no avail.2. The petitioners' father deceased Kallapa Ningappa Shahapure was a tenant in possession and cultivation of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 321/2, admeasuring six acres 39 gunthas, now gat No. 1095, situate at Alas, taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur, on the tiller's day. The father was a tenant of the suit land even prior to 1957. The petitioners assert that the land in question belonged to one Vasudeo Pujari.3. Proceedings under section 32-G of the Act were initiated in order to enable t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR501; 2003(6)BomCR778
B.H. Marlapalle, J.1. This is a letters patent appeal by the State Government, feeling aggrieved by the decision dated 25th January, 1993, of this Court (Single Bench) in Writ Petition No. 286/991 (Old No. 269/1983). Facts leading to this appeal are required to be stated.2. Writ Petition No. 286/1991 came to be filed by two brothers, by name, Sureshchandra and Ashokchand Bakliwal, contending that, they were originally residents of village Pravara Sangam in Newasa Taluka of Ahmednagar District, located on the banks of Godavari river. Their family owned ancestral properties, including houses and agricultural land in the said village and the said property came to be acquired by the Government of Maharashtra for the Jayakwadi Project. Consequently, the petitioners shifted to Ahmednagar and purchased jointly a plot of land in Survey No. 109 situated at Sawedi to have their own residential house. The petitioner No. 1 had 1 Ana and 6 paise share whereas, petitioner No. 2 had 2 Anas and 6 pais...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(4)BomCR476
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 16-4-2001, passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai, rejecting Complaint (ULP) No. 44 of 1998 filed by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that though initially she had disclosed her date of birth to be 22-9-1938 on the basis of the school leaving certificate. However, the petitioner was in fact born on 8-12-1945 and therefore based on circular dated 10-3-1986 the petitioner requested the respondent-Corporation to make necessary changes in her service records in relation to the date of birth of the petitioner but the same was illegally refused by the respondents and further the petitioner was served with the retirement memo dated 1-10-1996 stating that she would stand retired with effect from 1-10-1996. The refusal to carry out the necessary corrections in the service records pertaining to the date of birth of the petitioner inspite of doc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(6)BomCR261
Khandeparkar R.M.S., J.1. Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. None present for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, though served. Perused the records.2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 15-3-1999, passed by the Industrial Court dismissing the complaint filed under section 28 r/w Items 5 and 9 of the Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter called as 'the said Act'. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been denied the benefits payable in terms of the Settlement dated 28-8-1991 even though such payments are being made to other workmen. The defence of the respondents is that the petitioner has no furnished the necessary declaration in terms of the Clause 24 of the Settlement and considering the provisions of the Clause 25 of the Settlement, the respondents are not liable to pay the dues to the petitioner and that therefore there is no case of any unfair labour p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(1)BomCR825
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.1. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties.Perused the records.2. The petitioners challenge concurrent judgments and orders passed by both the courts below dismissing the complaint filed against the respondents alleging unfair labour practice under Item No. 1(a & g) of Schedule IV of M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act (hereinafter called as 'the said Act'). The complaint was dismissed by the Labour Court on 26-12-1996 and the revision application was dismissed by the Industrial Court on 30-8-1999. The impugned orders are sought to be challenged on three grounds. Firstly, that the Labour Court having found the domestic enquiry to be fair and just and the findings arrived therein to be not perverse, it could not have allowed the employer to lead further evidence in support of the charges and even if having allowed could not have relied upon the same while deciding the complaint and as both the courts have relied upon such evidence led by the respondents, the impugned orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(2)MhLj1041
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. The petitioner has taken exception to the judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in Ceiling Revision Case No. 225/1982 dated 27th May, 1987, The facts in brief, are as follows :The petitioner filed return in form No. III under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act). He had shown land admeasuring 102 acres and 2 gunthas to be in his possession. The Chairman, Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Karjat (hereinafter referred to as the S.L.D.T.) in his order in case No. Malthan 515 declared that the landholder's holding was more than the ceiling limit and hence, he declared 7 acres and 19 gunthas land of the petitioner as surplus. The S.L.D.T. excluded survey No. 173/2 admeasuring 13 acres and 2 gunthas situated at village Shelgaon, Tq. Paranda, District Osmanabad from the holding of the landholder.2. The S.L.D.T. in its order, was of the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(1)ALLMR493
A.P. Deshpande, J. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties. Heard Shri S.U. Nemade, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Sonare, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.2. As a common question of fact and law is involved in all the three petitions, the said petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. It is also to be noticed that all the three petitions arise out of the same notification, acquiring the lands of the petitioners. The petitioners were owners in possession of agricultural land situated in village Ghol in Amravati district. Their lands came to be acquired for 'Yenas Percolation Tank' by the State Government. Consequent upon acquisition, proceedings for passing of the award were taken up under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and ultimately, an award came to be passed under Section 11 by the 2nd respondent - Land Acquisition Officer. The award was passed on 18-10-1999, whereas in the case of Gangaram, the ...
Tag this Judgment!