Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2009(4)MhLj399
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. Rule, by consent of the learned Counsel made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. With the consent of the learned Counsel and at their request, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal.2. Sometime before dawn on 11th July, 1997, a statue of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, situated at Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar, Ghatkopar, Mumbai was desecrated. Residents of the locality came together to protest against the act of vandalization. Senior officials of the Pant Nagar Police Station and the Assistant Commissioner of Police reached the site. The Fourth Respondent was a PSI attached to the State Reserve Police Force and was stationed in the vicinity of Chembur. On receipt of a message he is alleged to have led his platoon to the scene of the protest at Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar. The allegation against the Fourth Respondent is that without the orders of his superiors he ordered the opening of fire : in the course of the shooting, ten pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Oral Judgment: 1. The question that arises for consideration in this contempt petition filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act of 1971) is whether the Commissioner while considering a complaint filed under Section 62 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, the Act of 1995) is a court for the purposes of Section 10 of the Act of 1971. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard in the Forest Department of the State of Maharashtra. Her appointment was on a post reserved for handicapped persons. The petitioner sought promotion on the post of Forester and on said claim not being accepted, she filed a complaint under Sections 62 and 63 of the Act of 1995 before the Commissioner. By order dated 2-7-2015, the Commissioner partly allowed the complaint and directed the Chief Conservator of Forest to examine the case of the petitioner and considered her claim for prom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. All the petitioners are challenging the directions of the respondent no.1-State of Maharashtra issued vide Government resolution dated 21.03.2007 whereunder the pension granted to them under the scheme called as "Swatantrya Sainik Pension Scheme" has been withdrawn. 3. All the petitioners claim that they were underground freedom fighters who have fought for the freedom of the Marathwada region from the rule of the Nizam of Hyderabad. Arrest warrants were issued against them. They were duly granted the pension as per the scheme framed by the respondent no.1-State of Maharshtra. The same however came to be withdrawn in the following background : 4. On 16.10.2001 a news item was published in Daily newspaper, wherein it was published that one Sherkhan Walikhan Pathan was arrested for preparing forged arrest warrants to substantiate the claim of various persons as freedom fighters. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)129; 2003BomCR(Cri)1405
Palshikar, J.The facts giving arise to this suo motu proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 are as follows: 2. That the Government of Maharashtra had appointed one man commission under the Commission of Enquiries Act, 1952 and nominated Hon'ble Shri Justice B.N. Srikrishna, a Judge of the Bombay High Court (as he then was) to be the Commission. It was a one member Commission. The Commission was appointed to enquiry into the causes of bomb blasts which rocked the entire metropolis of Bombay in 1993. The articles of reference included enquiry into existence or otherwise of establishments, organizations etc, responsible for such outburst.3. The Commission worked for five years and submitted its report to the Government of Maharashtra. In the report certain observations were made in relation to some newspapers and some parties. The Government of Maharashtra later on rejected the report. However, Shri Nilkanth Khadilkar who was then Editor of Navakal wrote a series of articles in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(5)BomCR821; 2000BomCR(Cri)821; 2000(2)MhLj242
ORDERB.H. Marlapalle, J. 1. The petitioner namely Council for Protection of Human Rights at Aurangabad, claims to be an organisation formed for the protection of human rights and also to voice against the violation of human rights. It does not appear to be an organisation which has registered itselfunder a relevant statute of the State or the Central Government and the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that after filing the petition in the nature of a Public Interest Petition, it has taken steps to register itself and the application for such a registration is pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner at Aurangabad for registration under the Societies Registration Act, as well as under the Bombay Public Trusts Act. In this petition the prayers made are substantially as under :-(i) The Central Bureau of Investigation be directed to investigate the whole incident of police violence that has allegedly taken place on 6-12-99 on the premises of Vikram Stadium (a police-groun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1991(4)BomCR695
H.W. Dhabe, J.1. These two writ petitions which challenge the Notification of the State Government dated 26th June, 1991 issued under sub-section (3) of section 18 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Town and Country Planning Act, 1974 and its further consequential notification dated the same issued under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 20 of the said Act can conveniently be disposed of by this common judgment. However, reference to the parties in this judgment would be as in the Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 except where W.P. No. 243 of 1991 is particularly considered and referred to.2. The facts in Writ Petition No. 240 of 1991 are that the petitioner is the Chair-person of the South Planning and Development Authority and in Writ Petition No. 243 of 1991, the petitioner is the Goa Citizens League, which holds out itself as a Special activist organisation formed with a view to promote social, economic and educational cultural and political interests for achieving the progress and welfare of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1954CriLJ366
ORDER1. This order shall govern the disposal of the following Miscellaneous Criminal Cases:No. 35/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Dr. S.M. Hasan and Ors.No. 36/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Shri Abhilas-Chandra.No. 37/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Dr. N.B. Khare and Ors.No. 38/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Swami K.N. Sokhta and Anr.No. 39/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Shri R.K. Shukla and Ors.No. 50/53: Shri M. V. Rajwade v. Thakur Pyarelal Singh and Anr.No. 48/53: In re Shri Ramgopal Maheshwari and Anr.2. Shri M. V. Rajwade, I.A.S., who is the petitioner in the first six cases is the Deputy Commissioner, Durg. The last case was registered on a petition filed by the Deputy Registrar, High Court of Judicature at Nagpur. These petitions were filed under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, for taking action against the alleged contemners in respect of certain publications.3. Respondents in these cases are the authors and/or publishers of the impugned articles.(A) The authors concerned are-(1) Dr. S....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1977)79BOMLR704
Vaidya, J.1. The above criminal revision application raises an important question under Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.2. The application is filed by the State against an order passed on September 18, 1973 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thana, over-ruling an objection raised by the special public prosecutor to a question being asked to the prosecution witness, in Sessions Case No. 36 of 1973, pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the sixty-rive opponents in the above revision application. The said opponents are charged by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 332, 149, 152 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, as mentioned in the charge, with regard to certain incidents which occurred in the communal riots in Bhiwandi in May 1970. It is not necessary to mention, for the purposes of this revision application, the details of the said charge.3. After the examination-in-chief of prosecution witness No. 1 Jayasingh ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1973Bom171; (1973)75BOMLR76; ILR1973Bom736
K.K. Desai, J. 1. The petitioner's case is that in pursuance of a call given therefor by the Peasant's and Workers' Party a Morcha of a few thousand persons, including women, was organised on September 6, 1971 near the Government Godown at Vairga village. On that occasion incidents of violence and firing by police took place. By a notification dated 18th November, 1971 Shri P. G. Karnik, District Judge, Aurangabad, was under the Commissioners of Inquiry Act appointed a Commission on Inquiry to inquire into and report on :(1) the incidents of violence leading to the firing by the police; and (2) to determine whether firing was justified or not and whether excessive or otherwise.2. The Commission appears to have held its first sitting on 24th January, 1972. On behalf of the Peasants' Party their advocate then submitted that having regard to the nature of the terms of reference the Commission should first record the evidence of witnesses for the police in connection with the incidents of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)61BOMLR1106; (1959)IILLJ599Bom
Datar, J.(1) The appellant before us was originally a Sanitary Inspector in the Municipal Committee of Nagpur. A departmental enquiry was started against him and on the 12th of December 1949 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. The Enquiry Officer held that the appellant was guilty of the charges for which the enquiry had been started but recommended that as there were extenuating circumstances, only a warning be given to the appellant by way of punishment. the officer in charge of the Municipal Committee, however, took a different view on the question of punishment to be awarded. To the appellant and accordingly passed an order services. It was necessary under the rules that this order of the Officer in Charge had to be approved of by the Board of Revenue. It appears that the Board of Revenue also approved of this order and the same was communicated to the appellant on the 27th of April 1951.(2) The appellant thereafter approached this Court by a special application under the pro...
Tag this Judgment!