Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1999VAD(Delhi)678; 81(1999)DLT347; 1999(51)DRJ46
ORDERArun Kumar, J.1. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 116 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act which provides the basis for determination of property tax to be levied on properties falling within Municipal Corporation of Delhi jurisdiction, is ultra virus the Constitution of India. To make good this point the learned counsel first contended that section 116 shows that the property tax is being levied on rental income from the property and as such it becomes a tax on income which as per Article 270 of the Constitution of India only the central Government can levy and collect. Secondly, it is contended that the Union parliament had no legislative competence to enact Section 116. Relevant portion of Section 116 is reproduced as under. '116. Determination of rateable value of lands and buildings assessable to property taxes- (1) The rateable value of any lands or building assessable to property taxes be the annual rent at which such land or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IVAD(Delhi)337; 63(1996)DLT458; 2003(39)DRJ205
Dalveer Bhandari, J. (1) These petitions are classic illustrations of discrimination and arbitrariness. Discrimination and arbitrariness in State actions strike at the very foundation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws against every State action. The' right to equality is the most important fundamental right of any democratic society. Fundamental rights are considered inalienable, natural and very basic bundle of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of any civilised society. (2) This order shall dispose of writ petitions No. 1141, 1147 and 1154 of 1996. The basic facts of these petitions are almost identical, thereforee, to avoid repetition detailed facts of only Writ Petition No. 1141/96 are recapitulated. The petitioner was compelled to approach this Court because of the letter dated 14th March, 1996 sent by the Assistant Registrar (Medical), to the Dean, Maulana Azad Medical Colleg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996VAD(Delhi)171; 64(1996)DLT213; 1996(39)DRJ777
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) The present petition is directed against respondents I and 2 for quashing the contract which the said respondents have allegedly entered into with respondent No.4 for display of Glow Signs and Hoardings in Departure Hall, Jaipur Airport, Jaipur without following the prescribed and established tendering procedure. (2) The petitioner is the sole proprietor of Chand Associates, a proprietory concern carrying on the business of putting advertisement hoardings and other allied hoardings and has been carrying on the said business in major cities of India. It is further alleged that the petitioner has been getting awards from various Government, public sector and private sector organisations for displaying their advertisement hoardings and to put up glow signs for last more than 5 years. Respondent No.1 is a body constituted under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and is responsible for running and managing the airports situated in the country. Respondent No.2 is th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2000VAD(Delhi)489; 86(2000)DLT327
ORDERK. Ramamoorthy. J.1. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :- '(a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the pay-scale granted to respondents 3 to 6 to the petitioners herein also who are doing the same and identical work; (b) Issue a writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents No. 1 from re-designating respondents 3 to 6 or any other person amongst professional Assistants though all the professional Assistants including the petitioners herein and the said respondents are functioning in identical and inter changeable posts, doing identical work, merely on the basis of qualifications.' 2. The petitioners and the respondents 3 to 6 on the date of the writ petition were working as Professional Assistant Juniors (Assistant Librarians). From the post of professional Assistant Junior the next avenue of promotion is Professional Assistant Senior (Dy. Librarian) and thereafter the incumbents can claim to be considered for the post of Librarian. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996(39)DRJ584
C.M. Nayar, J.(1) This judgment will dispose of two petitions Civil Writ No.l654/96 (Shri Hanspal Singh Bhinder v. University of Delhi and another) and Cwp No-3686/96 (Miss Nidhi Sota v. University of Delhi and another). The petitioner in the first case is a resident of Delhi and after passing his 10+2 Examination appeared in Pre-medical Entrance Test (DPMT) for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses. He did not, however, succeed in that test and was not placed in the merit list.(2) The petitioner appeared in Mbbs Entrance Test conducted by Manipal Academy of Higher Education (M.A.H.E.) and passed the said examination and was ranked at No.232 as will be indicated from the communication dated October 18, 1994 (Annexure P/6 to the writ petition). He joined the said course and passed the first professional Examinations from the above said University having obtained 55 per cent marks and was placed in the second class. The petitioner thereafter applied for transfer/migration from Kasturba Medical C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001ACJ988; 1999IIAD(Delhi)716; AIR1999Delhi264; 78(1999)DLT827; 1999(49)DRJ86
ORDER1. This is a writ petition whereby the petitioners, wife and two children of Head Constable Om Prakash, Malkhana Incharge, PS Naraina, who was killed in a rocket explosion, claim compensation for his death. 2. The first petitioner is the wife of the deceased Om Prakash and the second and the third petitioners are his children. The first respondent is the Government of NCT of Delhi, while the second and the third respondents are the Commissioner of Police and the Station House Officer, PS Naraina, respectively. 3. Om Prakash, at the time of his death, was Head Constable with the Delhi Police and was serving as Incharge, Malkhana, Police Station Naraina, under the immediate control of the third respondent. On January 31, 1996 an information was received at Police Station Naraina that a standard army rocket was lying near Post No. 6, Commercial Railway Lines. On receipt of the information, case under section 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was registered vide FIR No. 19/96 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 128(2006)DLT1; 2006(87)DRJ451
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.1. The petitioner has filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is in the nature of a recovery claim on account of the failure of the respondents to take necessary steps for forwarding the application of the petitioner for compensation to the United Nations Compensation Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'UNCC').2. The petitioner is a Chartered Accountant and shifted to Kuwait in 1980. The petitioner was working as the Financial Controller in Alghanin Industries when Iraq occupied Kuwait in August, 1990. The petitioner claims that he and his wife had to leave behind all belongings and through Jordan came to Bombay in September, 1990. On normalcy being restored in Kuwait, the petitioner returned in June, 1991 but during this period from September, 1990 to June, 1991 was unemployed in India.3. The UNCC was authorised to go into the claims for compensation of residents of Kuwait. Procedures were prescribed for making such claims. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2001CriLJ3476; 2001(59)DRJ298
ORDERArijit Pasayat, C.J.1. Expressing concern at the scurrilous manner in which an article has been published, in a journal named 'Wah India,' scornfully denigrating Judges putting question marks on their integrity and competence, these petitions have been filed. According to the petitioners the article in obnoxious and is 'judge bashing'. As the petitions involve almost identical prayer, they are taken up together for disposal. It is alleged that in the name of freedom of press and fair journalism, borders of decency and respect for the judiciary have been overstepped and a distorted version has been presented which has lowered the image of judiciary and thereforee attracts stringent action. In the article in question, certain statements have been made which tend to cause aspersions on the integrity and capability of Hon'ble Judges of this Court. It is highlighted that without any material to support or even proper verification of the statements purported to have been made by some me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1992(23)DRJ408
C.M. Nayar, J. (1) This writ petition is directed against the order dated July 4, 1983, of respondent No.3 by which the allotment in favor of the petitioner of type V flat in Som Vihar Project at R.K. Puram, New Delhi, was cancelled. The petitioner has impugned this order and has prayed for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to cancel the order of cancellation and to restore the petitioner to the position of allottee of the flat and for a writ of certiorari for quashing the said order cancelling the allotment in his favor.The petitioner was admitted as a member of the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (hereinafter referred to as the A.W.H.O.). The said organisation has been established by Army order for providing houses to serving and retired military personnel. The petitioner moved an application before the said Organisation for allotment of flat in R.K. Puram, New Delhi,and he was allotted the said flat on March 25, 1981. by the respondent. The petitioner has further averre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 80(1999)DLT810; ILR1999Delhi151
ORDERA.K. Sikari, J.1. All these writ petitions involve common question of facts and law and were heard together. These petitions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Since the question to be decided in these writ petitions is based on almost identical facts, for the purpose of convenience, facts of CWP.No.3464/98 are mentioned here: 3. The petitioners are holders of Diploma in Basic Training (DBT), which they have done from Jamia Millia Inslamia (JMI) University. It is the case of the petitioners, that DBT was considered at par with Elementary Training Education Training Course (ETE) being run by Govt. of NCT of Delhi/Respondent NO.1 for direct appointments as Primary School Teachers up to 1995. These Diploma Holders used to be considered for appointment as Primary Teachers in Schools run by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD)/Respondent No.2. Even in 1996, the candidates who had done DBT done JMI were given equal chance to apply along with those who had done ETC from District...
Tag this Judgment!