Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-21-2011
Ashok Bhushan, J. Large scale acquisition of agricultural and Abadi land of farmers of different villages of Greater Noida and Noida of District Gautam Buddha Nagar in the name of planned industrial development is the subject matter of challenge in these 471 writ petitions. These writ petitions have been placed before this Full Bench under orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 6.8.2011 on a reference made by a Division Bench in writ petition No. 37443 of 2011 and other connected matters. Writ petition No. 37443 of 2011 challenges the notifications dated 12.3.2008 issued under section 4 read with Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of Land Acquisition Act and notification dated 30.6.2008 by which declaration was made for acquisition of 589.188 hectares land of village Patwari. Similar notifications under section 4 read with Sections 17(1), 17(4) and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued with regard to different villages. Several writ petitions were filed challenging the land ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-19-2011
1. Heard Sri B.C. Rai for the petitioner, Sri H.P. Dubey and Sri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, advocates for respondents 1 and 2 and Addl. Chief Standing Counsel Sri C.S. Singh for respondents no. 3 and 4. 2. As requested and agreed by learned counsel for parties, I proceed to hear this case and decide finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court. 3. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.11.2007 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) whereby the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division-I, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as 'EE') has made final assessment order of Rs. 13,54,181/- and appellate order dated 10.6.2010 whereby the assessment has been modified to Rs. 4,81,976/- and consequential demand notice/bill issued by EE on 22.6.2010 raising a demand of Rs. 8,92,104/- i.e. the assessment as modified by the appellate authority and interest at the rate of 15 per cent to the tune of Rs. 4,10,128/- totaling to Rs. 8,92,1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-14-2011
..... t the term "relevant category of services specified in sub-section (5)" was mentioned in sub-section (6). while making amendment by act no. 26 of 2007 sub-section (5) has been redrafted and substituted in place of old one and in the substituted provision no "category of service" as such has been specified but the corresponding amendment in sub-section (6), it appears, has missed the attention of legislature ..... government to enforce different provisions of act on different dates. the entire act except section 121 came into force on 10.6.2003. section 185 of act 2003, except to the extent provided therein, repealed indian electricity act, 1910, electricity (supply) act, 1948 and electricity regulatory commissions act, 1998. 50. the comprehensive enactment, i.e. act, 2003 runs in 18 ..... authority about theft of electrical energy. the petitioner explained the reason for such increase by stating in para 69 of the writ petition that they had started a boiler on 22.6.2007 which resulted in higher consumption and this fact was not contradicted by respondents at any stage by making inspection of the premises at any point of time or ..... raised as per assessment bill, with due opportunity to him for making representation etc. as per the procedure prescribed for the same in the code. same as in column 2 ix. in cases of direct theft by tapping the licensee's lines, cables or electrical plant, electric supply to such premises or place shall be disconnected forthwith by the licensee. the licensee .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-30-2011
Reported in : 2012(3)KLT49(SN)(C.No.50)
On 8.8.2011, there was an extensive hearing in this case when Ms. Leena Jauhari, Secretary (Home), Government of U.P. Lucknow, Smt. Poonam Sikand, Additional L.R and Tanuja Srivastava, I.G.( Public Grievances), Ms. G. Sridevi, Secretary, U.P. State Legal Services Authority, Sri Ashok Mehta, Organising Secretary, Allahabad High Court, Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Sri Pankaj Naqvi, Sister Sheeba Jose Advocates on behalf of the intervenor 'Sahyog,' Sri D.R. Chaudhary, learned Government Advocate and Sri Bimlendu Tripathi, learned A.G.A appeared and were heard at length. An affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Director General of Police on 10.8.2011. Another affidavit was also filed on behalf of Special Secretary (Home), U.P. on 12.8.2011. An application was also moved by the intervenor 'Sahyog.' This Court appreciates the positive contributions and suggestions of all the aforesaid advocates and other State officials and that this pro bono litigation is being taken up in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-21-2011
1. Heard Sri U.N.Sharma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad and Sri Chandan Sharma for the applicant-respondent and Sri K.R.Singh for the petitioner. 2. These are three applications filed on behalf of respondent Bhishma Shankar in Election Petition No. 11 of 2009. 3. Application No. 48541 of 2010, Paper No. A14 dated 15.2.2010 is under Order VI Rule 16 of Civil Procedure Code (in short "CPC") for striking off paragraphs no. 5, 7 to 10, 21 to 23 and 25 to 34 of election petition being irrelevant, vague and fictitious. 4. Second Application No. 48548 of 2010, Paper No. A16 dated 15.2.2010 is under Order VII Rule 11 CPC praying for dismissal of election petition for non disclosure of cause of action. 5. The third application No. 48545 of 2010, Paper No. A15, is under Section 86(1) of Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as " 1951 Act") for dismissal of election petition for noncompliance of Sections 81(3) and 86(1) of 1951 Act. 6. Petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-20-2011
Reported in : 2012AIR(NOC)212
Amitava Lala, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 02nd February, 2011, annexure No. -7 to the writ petition, as well as demand notice dated 19th January, 2011, annexure No. -8 to the writ petition, issued by the concerned Executive Engineer, respondent no. 2 herein, and further seeks direction upon the respondents to restore supply of electricity of the petitioner and also not to recover the amount in question from the petitioner in any manner including coercive process. Briefly stated facts, according to the petitioner, are that he is a consumer of the electricity when Pashchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (hereinafter in short called as the “Corporation”) is the licensing authority. Father of the petitioner obtained electricity connection of 75 HP (56.696 KW) in the year 1978. The meter was installed in the meter room of the petitioner and it was kept in the lock and key of the concerned Executive Engineer of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-16-2011
1. Heard Mr. Narendra Kumar Pandey for the petitioner, Mr. K. R. Singh and Mr. S. C. Dwivedi for the respondent on the interlocutory application no. 294725 of 2009, moved under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). 2. The respondent has moved the aforesaid application for addition of new para 88 A to 88 I in the written statement and thereby wants to specify additional ground for showing that the proposer no.2 Pramod Kumar was not an elector, therefore, he was not competent to subscribe the petitioner's nomination for the election of the Member of the House of People from 51 - Phoolpur Parliamentary Constituency of district Allahabad, which was held on 16.4.2009. The petitioner and the respondent and other persons filed their nominations. The returning officer found the nomination of the petitioner as invalid on the ground that proposers Onkar Nath Tripathi, Rajesh Kumar, Tarun, Ashok Kumar and Akhilesh Kumar Dubey were not electors an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-10-2011
Heard Sri S.P. Sharma and Sri L.M. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7. This writ petition has been filed by the U.P. Motor Transport Association which is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Petitioner's case is that petitioner association represent/ventilate common grievances for protection of interest of members of the association. The motor vehicles used by the members of the petitioner association for transportation have been insured with the respondent Insurance Companies and they have been paying annual insurance premium towards damages claim and third party claim. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed for quashing the notification dated 15.4.2011 issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) exercising power vested in it under Section 14(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-26-2011
Vineet Saran, J. In response to an advertisement dated 1.7.2010 for construction of a Slaughter House in Meerut on a public private partnership model (hereinafter after referred to as the 'P.P.P. model'), the bid of the petitioner had been considered along with that of other applicants and was accepted by the Bid Evaluation Committee (B.E.C.) in its meeting held on 8.9.2010. A fresh decision was thereafter taken by the B.E.C. on 22.11.2010 holding that the bid of the petitioner was financially improper. It was thus recommended that fresh bids be invited by giving proper and wide publicity. In response thereto, a fresh advertisement was issued on 1.12.2010 by the Nagar Palika Parishad inviting fresh bids up to 15.12.2010. Challenging the said decision of the B.E.C. dated 22.11.2010 and consequential advertisement issued by the Municipal Commission, Nagar Nigam, Meerut dated 30.11.2010 (published on 01.12.2010), this writ petition has been filed. On 9.12.2010 this Court had passed the fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-15-2011
Heard Sri S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kripa Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 16.03.2000 passed in Adjudication Case No.53 of 1995 published on 18th August, 2000 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court IV, Kanpur (respondent No.2) Sri. S. D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner raised the pleading regarding maintainability of the reference under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. It has been submitted that the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. is a Company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is totally owned and controlled by the Central Government, Therefore, no reference can be made under the Provisions of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act. It has been submitted that the reference by the Governor, State of U.P. was made under Section 4-K of the Industrial Dispute Act. On 23.12.1992, b...
Tag this Judgment!