Court : Mumbai
Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. These petitions involve common questions of fact and law. They are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Rule in both the petitions. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Since both sides relied on the pleadings in Writ Petition No.2927 of 2015, we would take the facts and events from that petition. 4. The petitioner in this petition claims to be a 100% Export Oriented Unit ( EOU for short) engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of goods falling under Chapter 30 of the Schedule to the Central Tariff Act, 1985, and for that purpose they have a factory, inter alia, at the address mentioned in the cause title. They also have another factory in District Raigad, particularly in the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ( MIDC for short) area at Mahad. Respondent No.1 is the Union of India and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are officers exercising powers under the Foreign Trade (Dev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are claiming the following declaration:- "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that: (i) ... (ii) ... (iii) the provisions of the Slum Act will prevail over the provisions of section 36A of the MLR Code insofar as there is any conflict between the provisions; (iv) a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme can be implemented on land declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under section 3C of the Slum Act even if such land is owned by a member of a Scheduled Tribe; (v) ... (b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution calling for the records and proceedings relating to the notification dated 7th August, 2012 (at Exhibit B hereto) in so far as it makes redevelopmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari inter alia praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned order and judgment dated 4th March, 2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Navi Mumbai thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner under section 9(1) (b) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and Rules framed thereunder (for short the said MEPS Act and the said MEPS Rules). The petitioner herein had impugned the order of supersession dated 10th July, 2013 issued by the respondent no.1 management promoting the respondent no.4 to the post of the headmaster and had prayed for an order and direction against the management to promote the petitioner on the post of the head mistress w.e.f. 10th July, 2013 and to pay her all the salary as per scale, dues including back wages, emoluments, etc. attached to the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. 2. By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have sought a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, calling for the records and proceedings of Case No.67/SA/2012 from the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay and after examining the legality, validity and correctness of the three orders passed therein dated 6th November 2015, 19th December 2015 and 29th December 2015, the same be quashed and set aside. This relief is sought in the following facts and circumstances. 3. The first Petitioner before us is claiming to be a Partnership Firm, registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing various kinds of filters and filtration system used for industrial purposes. It is stated that the Firm operates from the business premises admeasuring 3740 sq.ft., lying and situated a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Prayer of 6 petitioners who are employees of Zilla Parishad, Amravati in Writ Petition No.2280/1997, is to quash and set aside their reversion from the post of centre incharge to the post of primary teacher by order dated 10.07.1999 and to continue them on promotional post with all consequential benefits. Petitioner in Writ Petition No.2356/1997 challenges very same order of same Zilla Parishad and a later order dated 22.07.1997. He has prayed for similar reliefs. In Writ Petition No.4035/2010, petitioner - Ramdas is employee of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. He seeks setting aside of seniority list prepared by that Zilla Parishad on 26.08.2008 and 24.09.2009, with further direction to said Zilla Parishad to prepare the seniority list as per directions of this Court and to prepare seniority list by accepting date of joining B.Ed. qualification as relevant date. Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2349/2011, are employees of Zilla Parishad, Buldhana and they seek a wr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
C.V. Bhadang, J. 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition, is to the communication dated 20/03/2015, whereunder, the respondent has refused to lift the abeyance of the Environmental Clearance (EC) in respect of the Title Concession (TC No.65/51) Pola Dongor Iron and Manganese Ore of the petitioner, on the ground that a part of the mining area, is a forest land. 3. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the petition, may be stated thus: That on 18/07/2007, the respondent had granted environmental clearance to the petitioner's Mining Lease (TC No.65/51) under EIA Notification dated 14/09/2006. On 12/07/2010, the Director of Mines and Geology, Government of Goa vide their letter dated 12/07/2010, informed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests that the State Government has approved the proposal to process the case, for obtaining the clearance under Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. All the writ petitions are heard by consent as assigned expressly. The issues are common and, therefore, this concluding common decision. Introduction of the controversy 2. The constitutional reservation policy always put the respective State Government in imbroglio. It is going to last long, as no one in the present scenario or otherwise is in frame of mind to compromise. Having once granted the constitutionally recognized reservation in diverse areas including in the state employment, it's total abolition is unwarrantable and without a solution. The legitimate rights once created and settled, since so many years, just cannot be taken away by a stroke of pen. It is not the case of grant of the reservation in service for the first time but question is of its continuance or discontinuance in part or full. Therefore, the crux of the matter is whether existing reservation policy, in the State employment, can be taken away by declaring such Reservation Statute and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The Hon'ble The Chief Justice has in view of the following orders dated 22.01.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos. 5191/2004, 5199 to 5205/2004, 5207 and 5520 of 2004, referred to this Division Bench the following question: 1. An unfortunate situation has arisen in the present matters. Writ Petition No.1209 of 2002 along with connected matters in respect of Class-IV employees of Municipal Council, Tumsar, were allowed by a common judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.) on 20-8-2011, and the common order passed by the Industrial Court directing regularization on the basis of Clause 4C of the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act read with Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, has been quashed and set aside and the complaints have been dismissed. Same is the view tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
Oral Judgment: 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.11.1996 passed by the School Tribunal, Nashik by which Appeal No.32/1996 filed by her was dismissed. 2. This petition was admitted on 17.02.1997. 3. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at length on 19.07.2016, 20.07.2016, 21.07.2016 and today. 4. The submissions of Shri Mantri, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, can be summarized as follows: (a) The Petitioner had passed her SSC when she was appointed on 01.06.1987 as an Assistant Teacher. (b) For three years, she had not completed her postal Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) which was to be completed by correspondence course. (c) Her first application for being admitted to the postal D.Ed. course is dated 21.01.1991 which was rejected by Respondent No.5/ Deputy Director of Education. (d) The Petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy Director by filing R.C.S. No.202/1992. (e) By judgment dated 29.04.1995, the said Civil Suit was di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
F.M. Reis, J. 1. The above Writ Petition, inter alia, prays for a writ to appoint a Court Commissioner to inspect and examine the records of the Goa Meat Complex to look into its affairs and submit a report within a time bound framed. It further seeks a direction to the Respondents to stop forthwith slaughtering all animals present within the premises of the Goa Meat Complex and further to stop forthwith any cow and bull slaughter in the Goa Meat Complex. It also seeks a direction to the Goa Meat Complex to handover the animals, cows, bulls and calves presently within the premises of the Goa Meat Complex to the Petitioners. It further prays to direct the police and the said authorities to initiate proceedings against the offenders including against the Respondent nos. 6 and 7. It further seeks a direction to ensure strict compliance and any implementation of the Goa Daman and Diu Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and The Goa Animal Preservation Act, 1995. 2. By an Order dated 22.04.2013,...
Tag this Judgment!