Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. Can an Army authority, in exercise of its powers under Section 125 of the Army Act, 1950, seek, for the purpose of investigation or trial, the custody of a person, who is subject to the Army Act, but in the custody of a criminal Court on accusation of having committed an offence, which is triable under the Army Act too, if the case, in connection with which the person is in custody, is under investigation by police or under an inquiry as contemplated by Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure? When a case lodged against a person, who is subject to the Army Act, 1950. is still pending for investigation by the police, whether it is permissible for a Court of ordinary criminal justice to hand over to the Army authorities, mentioned in Section 125 of the Army Act, the custody of the person, who is subject to the Army Act, but is in custody of the ordinary criminal Court on accusation of having committed an offence, which is also punishable under the Army Act, 1950,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T. Vaiphei, J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioners claiming the following reliefs:1. To pay adequate compensation to the petitioner No. 2, wife of the under trial prisoner, namely, Late Phomlin Mawlieh, who died on 11-9-1998 at Civil Hospital, Shillong while injudicial custody.2. To cause an enquiry by an independent and impartial agency as to the cause of death of the said under trial prisoner.3. To appoint highly qualified Forensic Science Medical Specialist for conducting Post-Mortem Examination on the dead body of the undertrial prisoner and;4. To constitute State Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Court as required under Sections 21 arrd 30 of the protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.2. Mr. S.P. Mahanta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Sharma, the learned Advocate General of Meghalaya have been heard at length.3. Though the case was initially registered as Public Interest Litigation, on the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T. NK. Singh, J.1. The present appellant is the defendant in the Title Suit No. 198 of 2000 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for ejectment of the appellant-defendant, his men and agents from the suit house, which is admittedly belonged to the respondents-plaintiffs in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division No. 1 Kamrup, Guwahati. The learned trial Court by passing the judgment and decree dated 30-1-2003 had decreed the Title Suit No. 198 of 2000 in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs for ejectment of the appellant-defendant from the suit house (suit premises) and also for recovery of arrear rent of Rs. 7920.00 along with interest of 15% P.A. from the date of filing of the suit till recovery.2. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court i.e. Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati dated 30-1-2003 passed in Title Suit No. 198/2000, the appellant-defendant preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 16 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
H.N. Sarma, J.1. Questioning the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 115-C(1) and Section 115-C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), so far as levy of the additional income-tax on dividends distributed on the basis of agricultural income on the ground of legislative incompetence of Parliament and also praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus to cancel/withdraw the levy of additional income-tax assessed upon the petitioners for the periods 1996-97 to 1999-2000, the present writ petition has been filed.2. We have heard Dr. D. Pal, learned senior counsel along with Dr. A. K. Saraf, learned senior counsel, and Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned standing counsel for the revenue.3. The necessary facts, relevant for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition, inter alia, are that petitioner No. 1 is a company limited by shares, of which petitioner No. 2 is the shareholder. Petitioner No. 1 owns several tea estates within the State of Assam, wher...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Amitava Roy, J.1. The extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked against the order dated 30.6.2006 of the District Magistrate, Dibrugarh, directing closure of the petitioner hospital and the notice dated 1.11.2006 of the Director of Health Services, Assam withdrawing the 'no objection certificate' dated 13.9.2006 permitting its provisional operation pending registration under the Assam Health Establishment Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and for grant of licence thereunder. In the face of intervening developments during the pendency of this proceeding the challenge stood extended also to the minutes of the meeting of the Scrutiny committee under the Act held on 7.8.2006 and 18.8.2006 as well as the enquiry report dated 6.3.2007 and the decision of the State Health Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'Authority') dated 14.3.2007 on the basis thereof withholding the registration and the licence to it.2. I have heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Aftab Hussain Saikia, J.1. Heard Mrs. N. Saikia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. V.L. Singh, learned State Counsel, Assam representing the official respondents.2. The cardinal question posed in this writ petition is as to whether the impugned order dated 1.11.2000 issued by the respondent No. 3 dismissing the petitioner from service purportedly in terms of Article 311 (2) (c) of the Constitution of India read with Section 7 of the Assam Police Act, 1861 (for short, 'the Act') and Rule 66 of the Assam Police Manual (Part-III) is tenable in law.3. In the instant case, the petitioner who was working as AB/LN was dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 1.11.2000 basically by invoking the provisions of Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution. For ready reference, the same be quoted as under:ORDERPerused the findings of the E.O. Shri A.C. Borah, APS, Addl. Supdt. of Police (S) Kokrajhar in connection with D/P No. 22/96 drawn up against delinquent AB L/N (H) 538 Dadhibal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
U.B. Saha, J.1. Mr. V.G. Pillai, the appellant herein, was the writ petitioner in Civil Rule No. 73 of 1998 before this Court. In the said Writ Petition, the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the General Security Force Court (for short GSFC) dated 16.02.91 whereby and where-under the petitioner was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years and also dismissed from service for committing a civil offence under Section 46 of the BSF Act, i.e. to say committing rape, an offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The said order dated 16.2.91 of the GSFC (Annexure-A to the writ petition) was confirmed vide order dated 10.6.91 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) passed by the Inspector General of Border Security Force (for short BSF) Tripura, Cachar and Mizoram Frontier (Confirming Authority) and the communication being No. 6/57/97-Pet/CIO (D&L;)/BSF/O-14 dated 02.01.1998 (Annexure-I to the writ petition), the information regarding rejection of the petitioner's appeal filed under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
U.B. Saha, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 03.06.05 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 3533 of 2002 whereby and whereunder the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition upholding the order dated 20.9.01 issued by the Commandant, 27th Bn. CRPF, Joynagar (Sibsagar), imposing penalty of dismissal from service w.e.f. the date the writ petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the C.J.M. cum-Commandant, 27th Bn. CRPF Under Section 16(2) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 (hereinafter refers to as the Act).2. We have heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. G Singh, learned C.G.S.C. on behalf of the respondents.3. The factual background necessary for the purpose of understanding the legal issues involved in this appeal are as under:The writ petitioner/appellant was a constable (General duty) of the 27th Bn. CRPF. On 5.9.01 a complaint was lodged by the Officer Commanding of the said Battalion, R.J. Parpatti, alle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
B.D. Agarwal, J.1. Drafting of legislation is not only an art but it is also a science. A perfect and a well crafted legislation is likely to achieve the objectives for which it is enacted, whereas a defective legislation not only defeats the intention and purpose for which it is legislated but defective rules and laws may also create confusion in the same field as well as injustice to the prospective beneficiaries of such law.2. The case in hand is an instance of causing artificial discrimination due to defective amendment of Service Rules, thereby depriving the writ petitioner from service benefits, more particularly, in the field of promotion.3. The writ petitioner is a well-qualified and talented police officer. The petitioner is possessing degrees in Mechanical Engineering and also in Master of Technology. In the year 1979, the Government of Manipur created a post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Motor Transport), ostensibly due to increase in the fleet of vehicles of Police ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
T. Nanda Kumar Singh, J.1. By these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the impugned order No. PDA 95/2007/2 dated 29.3.2007 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Panchayat & Rural Development Department and such being the situation, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. Heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, Mr. A.K. Goswami, Mr. N. Dutta, Mr. A.S. Choudhury learned senior counsels appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. A. K. Phukan, learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Assam. Also heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Election Commission.It would be apt to reproduce the impugned order dated 29.3.2007.Government of Assam Panchayat & Rural Development Department Dispur: GuwahatiNo.PDA.95/2007/2 dated Dispur, the 29th March, 2007 This is for information of all concerned that on completion of tenure of 5 (five) years with effect from the date of its first meeting, all Gaon Panchayats,...
Tag this Judgment!