Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-14-2000
Reported in : AIR2000SC1296; JT2000(3)SC221; 2000(2)SCALE415; (2000)4SCC640; [2000]2SCR299
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. (Majority view G. B. Pattanaik, U. C. Banerjee, JJ concurring). Leave granted in Special Leave Petition No. 16476 of 1993.2. Both these appeals, on grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, are moved by the State of Bihar, which is common appellant No. 1 in both these appeals. In Civil Appeal No. 9072 of 1996 the Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms. Government of Bihar is appellant No. 2, while in the companion appeal arising from the Special Leave Petition No. 16476 of 1993, the other contesting appellant is the Special Executive Officer-cum-Deputy Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna. In both these appeals, a common question of law arises for consideration, namely, whether the Legislature of the State of Bihar was competent to enact the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-24-2000
Reported in : AIR2000SC3425; JT2000(5)SC135; 2000(4)SCALE221; (2000)5SCC742; 2000(2)LC1317(SC); (2000)2UPLBEC1642
ORDERR.P. Sethi, J.1. Leave granted.2. Finding that the Judge Advocate was lower in rank to the accused facing trial before a General Court Martial (hereinafter referred to as 'GCM'), the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court and the entire Court Martial proceedings conducted against the respondent No. 1. The Bench, however, observed that the quashing of the proceedings of the GCM will not prevent the authorities concerned to initiate fresh court martial proceedings if they are so advised in accordance with law and also in the light of the judgment delivered. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the present appeal has been filed with a prayer for setting aside the impugned judgment and upholding the order of the GCM as well as the learned Single Judge.3. The relevant and almost admitted facts for determining the controversy in this appeal are that the first respondent joined the Indian Army as a Commissioned Officer in 1971 and was promoted to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-28-2000
Reported in : AIR2000SC3290; 2000(4)ALLMR(SC)862; [2000(87)FLR610]; 2000(6)SCALE586; (2000)8SCC167; [2000]Supp3SCR513
..... chapter dealing with safety, involve a good deal of technical knowledge and in the course of discharge of their duties and obligations the inspectors are expected to give proper advice and guidance so that there may be due compliance with the provisions of the act. it can well be said that on certain occasions factory owners are bound to receive a good deal of benefit by being saved from the consequences of the working of dangerous machines or employment of such processes as involve danger ..... which have come up in the state, the workload of the directorate of factories and the administrative department of the state government has increased manifold requiring expansion of their establishments ..... 1983]3scr843 a bench of three learned judges of this court considered the validity of the levy of market fee and the enhancement of its rate under the provisions of andhra pradesh (agricultural produce and livestock) market act ..... 2) where both the expressions are used indicating thereby that they are not the same. referring to the judgment in shannon v. lower mainland dairy products board (1938) ac 708 this court quoted with approval the observations that:if licenses are granted it appears to be no objection that fees should be charged in order either to defray the costs of administering the local regulation or to increase the general funds of the province or for both purposes... it cannot as their lordships think, be an objection to a license plus a fee that it is directed both to the regulation .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-18-2000
Reported in : AIR2000SC3751; (2001)1GLR434; 2000(7)SCALE34; (2000)10SCC664; [2000]Supp4SCR94
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. Narmada is the fifth largest river in India and largest West flowing river of the Indian Peninsula. Its annual flow approximates to the combined flow of the rivers Sutlej, Beas and Ravi. Originating from the Maikala ranges at Amarkantak in Madhya Pradesh, it flows Westwards over a length of about 1312 km. before draining into the Gulf of Cambay, 50 km. West of Bharuch City. The first 1077 km. stretch is in Madhya Pradesh and the next 35 km. stretch of the river forms the boundary between the States of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Again, the next 39 km. forms the boundary between Maharasthra and Gujarat and the last stretch of 161 km. lies in Gujarat.2. The Basin area of this river is about 1 lac sq. km. The utilisation of this river basin, however, is hardly about 4%. Most of the water of this peninsula river goes into the sea. Inspite of the huge potential, there was hardly any development of the Narmada water resources prior to independence.3. In 1946, the then G...
Tag this Judgment!