Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1991KAR2939; 1991(2)KarLJ524
ORDERMohan, C.J.1. In all these Writ Petitions which are filed as Public Interest Litigations, the petitioners are questioning the location of Mangalore Super Thermal Power Station as well as Ash Pond at Nandikur Village with the aid of USSR. The case of the petitioners is the Feasibility Report for the location of this Project was prepared in the year 1989 itself, and that was subject to Government clearance and financing tie-up. It is stated in that Report that the land proposed to be acquired is almost free from habitation, and this is totally an incorrect statement. At the instance of the villagers and the active participation of Balakrishna Shetty a team consisting of Dinesh Agarwal and Dr. Chattopadhyaya, Members of the Ministry of Environment came to Padubidri on 30-11-1990 and inspected certain lands for location of ash pond at various places. Before acquiring the lands for the proposed Project, it is incumbent for the Pollution Control Board to obtain clearance from the Minist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4678
Nayak, J.1. What arises for decision in these Writ Appeals and Writ Petition is the validity of the proposal/action of the Karnataka Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') in erecting high tension line over the lands of the appellants for supply of additional power-500 KVA to M/s.Widia (India) Limited (for short 'the Widia'). The above action of the Board was assailed by the writ petitioners on the grounds that the same was contrary to the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (for short, 'the Supply Act') and the Rules framed thereunder, Section 76M of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, (for short, 'the Planning Act') and Condition 1(a) of the Work Order dated 27.05.1994. A learned Single Judge of this Court without finding any merit in the above contentions raised by the Writ Petitioners, by his common order dated the 5th day of April 1999, has dismissed the Writ Petitions.2. The events leading to filing of the Writ Petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1987KAR2797; 1987(2)KarLJ327
Shivashankar Bhat, J.1. These appeals are by Huvappa, the petitioner, in W.P. Nos. 6517 and 7971 of 1977. He claimed the status of a tenant entitled to registration as an occupant under Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which was not granted.2. The disputed lands are situated at Yallur village in Belgaum Taluk. One Nilkanthappa Sangappa Potdar of Yallur died a few days prior to 27-2-1938 leaving behind, his mother, widow and two minor sons by name Sangappa and Mohan who are respondents 2 and 3 in W.P. No. 7971/77. The lands in question along with other properties formed part of a vast estate left by the deceased Nilkanthappa, situated both within and outside the limits of erstwhile State of Kuruadwad. As the aforesaid two sons of the deceased Nilkanthappa were minors, the estate of the deceased including the lands in question were taken under the management of the Court of Wards by the order dated 27-2-1938 issued by the Chief of Kurundwad State, under the provisions ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR3359
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In this Writ Petition presented by T.K.Verkey & Co., the 1st petitioner ('the Company' for short) and its Manager, the 2nd petitioner, challenging the validity of the order made by the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bangalore, the 1st respondent, on the application filed by the Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Bangalore, the 2nd respondent under Section 20(3) of the Minimum Wages Act ('the Act' for short), the following question of law arises for consideration --Whether the 1st Petitioner - Company which has entered into, a contract with the Railway Administration of the Central Government for constructing buildings can be regarded as carrying on its business/industry by or under the authority of the Central Government and,therefore liable to pay its workmen wages at the rates fixed by the Central Government under the Act ?2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The Company is an independent building contractor. It has entered into a cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1990Kant97; 1989(2)KarLJ202
ORDER1. Common prayer in these series is to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to forbear respondents from interfering with their right to excavate, remove and transport granite found in his/their patta land/s.2. Most of the petitioners are from old State of Mysore and a few from Kollegal, which on re-organization has become part and parcel of Mysore District. They trace their right to excavate granite either to proviso to S. 38 of Mysore Land Revenue Code and notification issued thereunder or the Madras Board Standing Order. In support of their prayer, reliance is placed on catena of decisions of this Court to which a reference would be made a little later.3. Respondents in their statement of objections dispute their right to extract minor minerals except in accordance with the Rules framed under S. 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') Specific reference is made to Ch. II of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2006KAR1306; 2006(2)KarLJ321
R. Gururajan, J.1. The Pawn Brokers Association and others are before us challenging the order passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court dated 28-9-2000 passed in W.P.No. 29372-377/1998.2. Facts in brief are as under:The appellant-petitioners sought a declaration that Sections 4A and 4B of the Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act, 1961 and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Karnataka Act 9 of 1998, providing for amendment of Sections 4 and 4A of P.B. Act, prohibiting the payment of interest on security deposit w.e.f. 31-5-1985 as unconstitutional. They also sought for a declaration declaring that Sections 7A and 7B of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act and Sections 3, 4, 6 and 8 of the Karnataka Act14 of 1998, providing for amendment of the ML. Act as ultra vires and unconstitutional and being contrary to the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court and for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from collecting the security deposits under the two acts as well as the enhanced licence fee in terms of the Act....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1997KAR368
ORDERTirath S. Thakur, J1. 'Long holidays and Short working hours' is the burden of the claim made in these Writ Petitions, which call in question Circular Nos. 6, 10 & 31 dated 22.4.1991, 5.8.1991, and 7.2.1995 respectively issued by the Respondent-Corporation. By these Circulars Ministerial staff posted in Depots, Control points, Stores and workshops have been asked to work for 8 hours a day be entitled to a total of 10 valid holidays during the span of One year. The petitioners contend that the increase in the working hours from 6 1/2 hours to 8 hours a day and the decrease in the number of holidays from twenty two per year to a bare ten is illegal and amounts to changing their service conditions to their prejudice without the authority of law and contrary to the provisions of the Statutes applicable to them. The facts are few and may be stated first:2. The petitioners are working as Clerks, Cashiers, Typists, Junior Assistants, Supervisors etc., and are presently posted in differen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : I(1997)ACC627; 1997ACJ878; ILR1997KAR292; 1997(2)KarLJ343
M.P. Chinnappa, J1. These appeals are preferred by the Insurance Companies being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 5.3.90 passed in M.V.C.No. 71/87 and the Judgment & Award dated 24.11.1988 passed in M.V.C. No. 165/87 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, allowing partly the claim petitions for compensation of the petitioners.2. The facts leading to these appeals are that on 31.8.86 at about 10.30 p.m. one K.N. Thipperudraiah and M.R. Sathyamurthy who are the employees of Karnataka Soap and Detergent Ltd. which comes under the Employees State Insurance Corporation were travelling in a Van bearing No. CAR 3865 belonging to the said employer. When the Van reached near the Government Junior College (Ammani College) at Chowdaiah Road, bus bearing No. CAA 918 belonging to Karnataka Government Tourist Development Corporation collided with the Van in which these petitioners were traveling, as a result of which these persons sustained multiple previous injuries including compound fra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1897; 1998(4)KarLJ323; (1999)IILLJ532Kant
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. In all these writ petitions the question involved is identical with little variation of facts in W.P. Nos. 16388 to 16398 of 1997 and W.P. No. 22511 of 1997 to which we shall advert and deal with in the later part of the judgment. Facts are taken from W.P. nOB. 14083 and 14084 of 1997, M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited and Another v State of Karnataka.2. This case is concerned with the vires of the notification KA-E-C-LWA 97, dated 11th April, 1997 Annexure-A prohibiting the employment of contract labour in the canteen (industrial canteens) in factories employing 250 workers and above in the State of Karnataka under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (Act 37 of 1970) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Relevant facts extracted from the pleadings of the parties are:4. First petitioner is one of the units of M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited located at Byatarayanapura, Bellary Road, Bangalore. It was started in the year 1975 for m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1985KAR688
ORDERRama Jois, J.1. In these Writ Petitions, the Petitioners, have questioned the validity of the notifications issued by the StateGovernment under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act ('the Act' for short) fixing minimum wages for various employments specified in Part-II of the Schedule to the Act. The first group of these Petitions are by the employers and the second group are by Trade Unions on behalf of workmen in various industries. Both are aggrieved by the impugnednotifications, but for different reasons.2. The facts of the case, in brief, and to the extent necessary for the consideration of general points arising for consideration in these Petitions are as follows : Minimum wages had been fixed for various categories of employees in different schedule employments under the Act by earlier notifications issued in or about the year 3978-79 under Section 3 of the Act. In the year 1981, the StateGovernment proposed to revise the rates of minimum wages by the mode specified in Section...
Tag this Judgment!