Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1986Ker15
..... writ petition.5. article 46 of the constitution directs the state to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the scheduled castes' and the scheduled tribes, and to protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. it is in pursuance to this direction contained in the constitution that reservations have been made in favour of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the matter of employment and promotion in government service. the constitution (scheduled castes) order 1950 was issued by the president of india in virtue of the powers conferred on him under clause (1) of article 341 of the constitution ..... before the re-organisation of 1956.'in bhaiya ram munda's case, air 1971 sc 2533, the supreme court following its earlier decision in dina v. narayan singh (c. a. no. 1622 of 1967) : (reported in ..... kerala cannot be issued certificates to the effect that they belong to sc/st.'the government of kerala had on representations submitted by interested persons and association considered the question and passed an order g. o. ms. 139/80- ..... issued by the competent authority to prove their eligibility for certain reservations in the matter of promotion to higher grades and posts in service. the certificates produced by the members of the pulaya community were not accepted for the reason that 'pulaya' is not one of the castes included in the scheduled castes order issued by the president of india .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1984)IILLJ214Ker
Balagangadharan Nair, J.1. Annexure I to the High Court Service Rules, 1970 prescribes the qualifications for the post of Assistant Grade II which is Category 11 as the same as Category 8, Assistant Grade I, Category 8 for Assistant Grade I lays down the following qualifications:Division and Post General & Educational SpecialCategory qualifications qualificationsCategory 8 Assistant Grade I A degree of a Univ- 1. SecretariatUniversity in the Manual TestIndian Union in Arts 2. Account Test or Science or Com- (Lower)merce or a degree of 3. Judicial Test any other Univer- or Civil Judicialsity which is recog- Test and Criminalnised as an equivalent Judicial Test or adegree by the Kerala Law degreeUniversity.The 1st respondent, who is the Registrar of the High Court, published a Notification Ext. PI dated 27th October, 1983 that it was proposed to prepare a select list of candidates for appointment as Assistants Grade II in the High Court as and when vacancies arise. It proceeded to say, s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1984Ker87
Bhaskaran, Ag. C.J.1. The question of law that falls for decision in this writ petition, referred to the Division Bench by our learned brother Justice Paripoornan, relates to the true construction to be given to Section 6-A(2) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, (Central Act 10/55), for short the Act.2. The facts material for our present purpose are not much in dispute. On 7-9-1983 the 2nd respondent, the Taluk Supply Officer (Special Squad), Ottapalam, having seized from the petitioner 50.75.000 quintals of raw rice and 30 quintals of boiled rice under a mahazar, the said rice having been found stocked in a mill premises in contravention of the Kerala Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order (the Food Grains Order), a notice dated 9-9-1983, a true copy of which is Ext. P2, was issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent, the District Collector, Palghat, stating inter alia -'Since the seized articles are of a perishable nature/long storage will damage them/ orders have been issued to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1984Ker1
Subramonian Poti, C.J. 1. In view of the importance of the question arising for decision in this appeal a Division Bench of this Court before which the Writ Appeal came up for hearing earlier referred the case to a Full Bench and that is how the matter has come up before us now.2. The Writ Appeal is by the State of Kerala against an order of a learned single Judge of this Court finding no ground for review of an order directing issue of notice to the respondents in the Original Petition including respondents 2 and 3, the Speaker, Kerala Legislative Assembly and the Secretary, Kerala Legislative Assembly respectively. Whenthe Original Petition came up for admission before the learned single Judge notice was directed to be issued to the respondents. It was then that the 1st respondent, the State, appeared in the case and filed a statement. The State made no motion as such. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the Court must cancel its order directing issue ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1983Ker254
ORDERK. Bhaskaran, J.1. In and by the judgment dated 18-3-1983 in M. V. A. A. No. 8 of 1983, a true copy of which is marked Ext. P-6, the 4th respondent the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam, granted a temporary permit on the route Karuvarakundu-Trichur via Thuvur, Pandikkad, Perinthalmanna, Pattambi and Kunnamkulam (vide Ext. P-1 rough sketch) for a period of four months to the 1st respondent, setting aside the relevant proceedings dated 21-12-1982 of the 3rd respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram, a true copy of which is marked Ext. P-2, whereunder the permit was ordered to be granted to the petitioner. In Ext. P-2 proceedings of the 3rd respondent the petitioner and the 1st respondent respectively were shown as applicants Nos. 1 and 4; there were two other applicants also. The decision of the 3rd respondent as stated in Ext. P-2 reads as follows :--'Applicant No. 3 is absent. Heard applicants 1, 2 and 4. This is long route. Marks are awarded. Applicants...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1979]116ITR158(Ker)
Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J.1. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, has referred the following questions of law for our opinion :'(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the reassessment made under Section 147(b) of the I. T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1967-68, is not valid and proper ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the order of the AAC, which is appealed against by the assessee, cannot be said to be 'information' within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the I. T. Act, 1961, and that, so far as the ITO is concerned, it is only a change of opinion ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that even if that order of the AAC appealed against by the assessee constitutes information within the meaning of Section 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961, such information being related...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1978Ker131; 1978CriLJ743
..... and state courts should be exhausted before the remedy in the supreme court -- be it habeas corpus or certiorari -- would be allowed. we are of opinion that neither the instances mentioned by the learned advocate-general nor the american decisions referred to by him are really analogous to the remedy afforded by article 32 of the indian constitution. that article does not merely confer power on this court, as article 226 does on the high courts, to issue certain writs for the enforcement of the rights conferred by part iii, or for any other purpose, as part of its general jurisdiction, in that case it would have been more appropriately placed among articles 131 to 139 which define that jurisdiction. article 32 ..... and bar a petition for similar relief under article 32 of the constitution. the principle was affirmed in trilokchand motichand v. h. b. munshi, commr. of sales-tax, bombay (air 1970 sc 898) and arati hay choudhury v. union of india (air 1974 sc 532). but with these principles thrown in, on the terms of the statutory provisions, would we be justified in insisting even as a rule of salutary practice that the party should approach the sessions judge first before moving the high court? in the face of the bar provided by clause .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(Ker)0293B
T. Kochu Thommen, J. - The question for consideration is whether the expression 'a reasonable opportunity of being heard' in clause (c) of section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, includes a right to cross-examine persons who have not been summoned by the department as its witnesses, but whose statements are relied on by it in an enquiry against the petitioner. It is contended that such a right is derived from the principles of natural justice as embodied in the section.2. The facts of this case are : The petitioner is the owner of car K.L.F. 4024. It is one of the several cars alleged to have been involved in smuggling activities on 14-11-1973. The car was seized by the Customs Officer on 15-11-1973. A notice was sent to the petitioner, together with copies of statements of certain persons, including that of the driver of his car, calling upon him to show cause as to why his car should not he confiscated under section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962. To this notice the petitioner sent Ext. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 1975CriLJ1164
P. Govindan Nair, C.J.1. This is one in a series of petitions praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, arising from the orders of detention passed under Section 3(1)(c) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971, for short, the Act, as amended by the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974 (No. 11 of 1974), issued by the President under Article 123 of the Constitution, It is by the amending Ordinance that Section 3(1)(c) was enacted which is in these terms:3. Power to make orders detaining certain Persons : - (1) The Central Government or the State Government may-(a) ....(b) ....(c) if satisfied with respect to any person (including a foreigner) that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange or with a view to preventing him from-(i) smuggling goods, or(ii) abetting other persons to smuggle goods or(iii) dealing in smuggled goods it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR1975Ker117
ORDERGeorge Vadakkel, J.1. The petitioner, who is the Secretary of the Cochin Branch of the Rashtreeya Sevak Sangh (for short, Sevak Sangh) moves for a mandamus to direct respondents Nos. t and 2, the District Collector, Ernakulam, and the City Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam, respectively, to sanction the use of Mike, Loud Speakers or such other Amplifier appliances by the petitioner and the organization he represents. He also prays for a certiorari quashing Ext. P2 proceedings of the 1st respondent. By Ext. P2 proceedings dated 15-2-1974 the 1st respondent accorded sanction to use the Durbar Hall Ground in this city for' conducting the annual day celebrations of the Sevak Sangh subject to three conditions, the first of which is that 'mike, loud speaker etc. should not be used at any time.' The petitioner's complaint is against the imposition of this condition, and he seeks the aid of this Court to use mike, loud speakers etc. at the annual day celebrations of the Sevak Sangh to be ...
Tag this Judgment!