Court : Guwahati
(CAV), J. 1. The challenge in the writ petition is the Annexure-XIII Request for Proposal (RFP) dated 03/02/2012 followed by the Memorandum of Understanding dated 11/06/2012 entered into between the Government of Assam in the Health and Family Welfare Department headed by the Mission Director, National Rural Health Mission (hereinafter referred to as NRHM), Assam and the respondent No.4 Narayan Hrudayalaya, a private limited Company, as according to the petitioners such a course of action adopted by the respondents is contrary to the earlier promise made out to them in respect of running of the particular hospital, namely, Tolaram Subhkaran Bafna District Hospital. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS: 2. The petitioners numbering 3 are charitable trust registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and are represented by their Chairman and Managing Trustee. They have filed the writ petition challenging the action of the Government of Assam in the Health Department in entering into a Memorandum o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
(CAV), J. 1. Two writ petitions, being WP(C) No. 5696 of 2013 and WP(C) No. 5191 of 2013 along with their Misc. cases, namely, MC No. 3213 of 2013 and MC. No. 3009 of 2013 relate to election of Managing Committee of AOD Oil Cooperative Society Limited, Digboi. In WP(C) No. 5191/ 2013, the AOD-OIL Cooperative Societies Limited (hereinafter referred to as the society) and its Vice-President, Sri Pabon Borah, are the petitioners and they have challenged legality and validity of order dated 31.07.2013 issued by the Zonal Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Jorhat (hereinafter referred to as the Zonal Registrar) whereby the Managing Committee of the society was held to have automatically dissolved under Section 41(3) of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 and thereupon one Sri Arun Kotoky a Senior Inspector of the Cooperative Societies Tinsukia who is respondents No. 4 in this writ petition was appointed as the Officer on management to manage the affairs of the society. On the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J. 1. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the third President of the United States (18011809) 2. Article 21 is one of the most cherished provisions in our Constitution, which prohibits the State from depriving a person of his life and liberty except according to the procedure established by law. However, what happens if by the States action, which has been neither sanctioned by a legislation nor has been taken in valid exercise of its executive powers, the ineffaceable mandate of Article 21 gets smudged. This is precisely the issue, which the appellant has been, for almost a decade of litigation, urging the court to decide. Having been unsuccessful in his attempt to convince the Court in his writ petition of the correctness and righteousness of his contentions, the appellant is, now, before us, seeking a revisit to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order, (Cav): I.A. Ansari, J. With the help of this writ petition, made, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has put to challenge the order, dated 18.12.2009, passed, in Original Application (in short, OA) No.239/2008, by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (in short, the Tribunal), Guwahati Bench, dismissing the OA and refusing thereby to interfere with the order, dated 01.10.2008, whereby the respondents herein had refused to grant to the writ petitioner temporary status in terms of the Casual labourers (Grant of Temporary status and Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 1993 Scheme). 2. We have heard Mr. B. C. Das, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the writ-petitioner, and Ms. D. Sinha, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for the respondents. 3. The material facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, may, in brief, be set out, as under: (i) The petitioner herein was appo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order: I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Standing before us, as the petitioner in this writ petition, made under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is a decorated officer of the Indian Air Force, a recipient of Visistha Sewa Medal, presently holding the rank of Air Commodore after having served the Indian Air Force since 1983 as a fighter pilot of the highest caliber with an impeccable and unblemished service record. The petitioner has come to this Court, having been unsuccessful in invoking the jurisdiction of the Armed Forces Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the AFT), the petitioners grievance being that he is a victim of harassment, humiliation and persecution in a systematic, concerted and vindictive manner by the respondents, because the petitioner had raised his voice against mal-administration and corruption leading to low quality of construction of Airbase for operation of well known Sukhoi-SU-30 MKI Aircrafts. 2. The case of the petitioner, leading to filing o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order, (Cav) 1. Drillmec S.p.A., a Company registered in Italy and working in the area of manufacture and supply of land rigs for the purpose of exploration and development of Oil and Gas, has filed the present petition praying for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Oil India Limited (in short, OIL) to settle the tender process initiated vide tender notices Nos.SDG9008P11/07 and SDG7289P13/07 in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of law and other guidelines formulated and also restraining the respondent OIL from awarding the contract in favour of the respondent No.4, apart from a direction to award the contract in favour of the petitioner by quashing the 430th meeting of the Corporate Business Committee (in short, CBC) held on 27th December, 2012 in relation to the aforesaid tender notices, contending inter alia that though the petitioner, the respondent No.4 and the respondent No.5 were found to be technically responsive in the technical bids, there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order, (Oral) A.K. Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. M A Sheikh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. C Baruah, learned CGC, appearing for Respondent No.1, Mr. J Abedin, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 and Mr. S Borthakur, learned counsel for Respondent No.4. 2. This writ petition is directed against the letter of intent issued by the Reliance Industries Ltd., for short, RIL on 27.03.2006 appointing the Respondent No. 4 as a dealer for its retail outlet at Dhakuakhana, Assam. A further prayer is made for a direction to Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, to issue advertisement for settlement of a retail outlet at Dhakuakhana, if they decided to open one. 3. It is pleaded in the writ petition that Dhakuakhana, which is a most backward region of the State of Assam, has a large unemployed population and in order to give employment opportunity to the local population, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have issued a notice invitin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Oral: 1. This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the accused, namely, Ditumoni Hazarika seeking pre- arrest bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Narayanpur PS Case No. 45 of 2013 (GR No. 425 of 2013) under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard Mr. FKR Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B B Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Assam. I have also perused the FIR, victims statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the other documents, regarding age of the victim girl, annexed with the bail application. 3. The FIR was lodged on 24.3.2013 by the father of the victim girl alleging that his 17 year old daughter was kidnapped by the accused. The name of kidnapper came to the knowledge of the father in the morning and within hours the FIR was lodged. 4. Mr. Ahmed submitted that the victim girl was produced before the I.O. by the father of the accused himself. Thereafter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Judgment and Order: Ansari, J. 1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of these two appeals, preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the orders, dated 19.03.2010, passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal), Guwahati, in Income Tax Appeal (in short, ITA) Nos. ITA 52/Gau/2009 and ITA 95/Gau/2007 inasmuch as these two appeals, as would be seen, cover all the four subsidies, namely, transport subsidy, interest subsidy, power subsidy and insurance subsidy, which form the subject-matter of controversy in the present set of appeals. While disposing of the two appeals, as indicated above, the learned Tribunal took the view that the assessee-respondents are entitled to claim deduction either under Section 80IB or under Section 80IC of the Act, though the Revenue contends that the assessee-respondents are not entitled to receive, and could not have been le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
The matter pertains to implementation of the Inter Facility Medical Ambulance Services in Assam and the awarding of contract thereof. The writ petition running to 76 pages (inclusive of annexures from page 10 to 76) was filed with the following prayer :- It is therefore most respectfully prayed that Your Lordship would be graciously pleased to admit this petition by issuing Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why (i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to ensure participation of the Petitioner in the opening of financial bid. (ii) To issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the of RFP No. NRHM/102/IFT/976 dated 03.10.2012 issued by Respondent No.2. (iii) To call for the records of the case and upon perusal of the same and on hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute and / or be pleased to pass any such further or other order or orders as your lordship may deem fit and proper. (iv) To refrain and restrain the Respondent No.2 from taking a...
Tag this Judgment!