Court : Guwahati
A. Hazarika, J.1. The power of review, which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction has been invoked by filing the review application for review of the judgment and order dated 17.3.2005, passed in Writ Appeal No. 25(SH) of 2002 in Civil Rule No. 262 (SH) of 2002, to prevent miscarriage of justice as pleaded, wherein the writ appellate court has concurred with the judgment and order dated 21.8.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge, holding that no case has been made out for interference while dismissing the writ appeal.2. The grounds of review as averred, would reveal that the writ appellate court has proceeded to decide the case under the provisions of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Act 9 of 1910) (herein after referred to as Act 9 o f (1910), whereas the said Act 9 of 1910 has been repealed under Section 185 of the Electricity Act of 2003 (Act 36 of 2003) (hereinafer referred to as Act 36 of 2003), with effect from 26.5.2003 and therefore, it was incumbent on the part of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ram Labhaya, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, from the State of Assam. It arises out of a proceeding under Section 16, Assam Opium Prohibition Act, 1947, as amended. The proceeding was initiated by complaint of the Excise Inspector dated 16-8-1948. The learned Magistrate (first class at Tezpur) found that Judhabir Chetri, Opposite Party was a smuggler of opium by habit and also its seller and stockist and on 21-11-1949 ordered his externment from the Province of Assam for a period of 18 months. 2. An appeal was preferred against this order on 7-12-49. The appeal was allowed and the order of the trial Magistrate was set aside by the learned Additional Sessions Judge L.A.D. 3. The State of Assam has invoked the powers of superintendence that this Court is invested with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with a view to obtaining a reversal of the appellate, and the restoration of the original order. 4. Mr. Ghose, the learned counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.K. Goswami, J.1. This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an older dated 22nd September, 1968 passed by the General Manager, N.F. Rly informing the President of the North-East Frontier Rly. Mizdoor Union and the General Secretary of the said union by telegram and a letter of the same date that the recognition of the Union was withdrawn.2. The petitioner's case is that it is a Trade Union of non-gazetted employees, registered under the Indian Trade Union Act, 1926 and that it was accorded recognition by the Railway Administration as early as 1958. The petitioner states that it decided to call a token strike of its members on the 19th September, 1968 as per decision of the All India Rail way men Federation and the Joint Council of Action. On 3rd September, 1968, the petitioner gave notice of a taken strike on the 19th September, 1968 to the General Manager of the N.F. Railway as also to the conciliation officer under Section 22 of the Industr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the applicability of the Wealth Tax Act, for short, the Act, on the Mizos residing within the State of Mizoram. 2. The petitioner was served with two notices dated 1.10.1996 to submit his returns for the year 1996-96 and 1996-97 under section 14(2) of the Act. The petitioner is a Mizo residing in the State of Mizoram and in the present application, the challenge to the applicability of the Act is on the following counts :- (1) In order to apply the provisions of any Central Act to the State of Mizoram, there must be a Notification to that effect by the President of India and in the absence of such Notification, the said Central Act is not applicable to the local inhabitants of Mizoram. (2) In view of the provisions of the Income Tax Act exempting the people belonging to Scheduled Tribe category and living in the scheduled tribe area for payment of income tax under the Incom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Mehrotra, J. 1. This Rule was issued on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari or any other writ of like nature quashing the order passed by the Local Board of Barpeta Sub-division and further for a writ of mandamus directing the Barpeta Local Board not to give effect to its order for payment of license fees fixed by the Local Board, Barpeta, hereinafter called the Board, in respect of Kharma Hat owned by the petitioner. The petitioner states that he is the proprietor of Nisf Khiraj land covered by Patta No. 2 at village Ata, Mouza Bhawanipur in the district of Kamrup. In the year 1936 he opened a Hat on the aforesaid land in order to meet the needs of the neighbouring people. After sometime the Hat was settled by public auction with different people who realised the dues from the persons who carried on their business in the said Hat. The petitioner further states that he had to incur huge expenditure for upkeeping and maintaining the H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ranjan Gogoi, J.1. The validity of the Assam Entry Tax Act, 2008 and the Rules framed thereunder along with the provisions of the Assam Entry Tax (Amendment) Ordinance, 2008 have been questioned in this group of writ petitions. Consequently, all the writ petitions were heard together and are being answered by means of this common order.2. Before adverting to the specific grounds of challenge as unfolded by the laborious arguments advanced on behalf of the contesting parties it will be useful to notice, though very briefly, the somewhat chequered history of the impugned legislation and the earlier challenges made before this Court as against the predecessor legislations.3. The Assam Entry Tax Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act of 2001') which is the predecessor legislation was brought into force with effect from October 1, 2001. The said Act which was enacted in exercise of powers under article 246 read with the entry 52 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constituti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Amitava Roy, J. 1. This appeal while registering a challenge to the judgment and order dated 27.6.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Aizawl, in RFA 5/2003 raises a question of considerable moment relating to the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the State of Mizoram. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff amongst others being barred by limitation.2. I have heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. Sailo, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.3. The pleaded facts are indispensable. The appellant/plaintiff instituted Money Suit No. 50/98 in the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Aizawl, against the respondents praying for a decree, inter alia, for declaring that the respondents/defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,12,500 on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred for setting aside the notification dated 23.9.1997 (Annexure-B) issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Finance department. The petitioner is the Secretary of the Goalpara District Higher Secondary Teachers' and employees Association. As many as 67 subject Teachers in different subjects were appointed in different Higher Secondary Schools in Goalpara District on ad hoc basis as per Assam Public Services (Adhoc) Rules, 1986 and they have been discharging their duties sincerely without any blemish. It is pleaded that the said 67 teachers have a right to get regularisation and prayer to this effect was also made to the respondent No. 4. No action has been taken so far to consider their case although they are entitled to regularisation as per Rules. The said 67 teachers were initially given the benefits of increment on completion of one year's service. Besides, most of them also c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been preferred for setting aside the notification dated 23.9.1997 (Annexure-B) issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Finance department. The petitioner is the Secretary of the Goalpara District Higher Secondary Teachers' and employees Association. As many as 67 subject Teachers in different subjects were appointed in different Higher Secondary Schools in Goalpara District on ad hoc basis as per Assam Public Services (Adhoc) Rules, 1986 and they have been discharging their duties sincerely without any blemish. It is pleaded that the said 67 teachers have a right to get regularisation and prayer to this effect was also made to the respondent No. 4. No action has been taken so far to consider their case although they are entitled to regularisation as per Rules. The said 67 teachers were initially given the benefits of increment on completion of one year's service. Besides, most of them also cam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Reported in : AIR2009Gau151
J. Chelameshwar, C.J.1. When this matter was taken up on 29-4-2009 Mr. S. Deb, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant (respondent in PIL No. 50/04) raised a preliminary objection regarding the legality of the proceedings before this Full Bench. According to the learned Counsel petitions filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 are required to be heard either by a single Judge or a Division Bench consisting of two Judges and the Rules framed by this Court in exercise of the power under Article 225 do not contemplate hearing of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a Bench consisting of more than two Judges unless a Division Bench hearing the writ petition makes a specific reference of any question of law which in the opinion of the Bench hearing the matter is required to be considered and decided by a Full Bench or a Larger Bench. The learned Counsel further submitted that in the instant case there is no such order of reference by the Divi...
Tag this Judgment!