Court : Chennai
WP 21933/2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned notification issued by the first respondent in GSR No.218(E) published in Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II-Section 3-Sub-section (i) dated 16.3.2011 in so far as it relates to item No.(i), i.e., Gatifloxacin formulation of systemic use in human by any route including oral and injectable and direct the respondents to review the prohibition after giving an opportunity to the petitioner.WP 25442/2011:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records in connection with the impugned notification issued by the first respondent in GSR No.218(E) published in Gazette of India Extraordinary Part II-Section 3-Sub-section (i) No.139, dated 16.3.2011 and to quash the same in so far as it relates to ite...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IVAD(Delhi)67; 63(1996)DLT786; 1996(38)DRJ555
R.C. Lahoti, J. (1) Veterinary Council of India and Indian Council of Agricultural Research, the two 'States' or instrumentalities of the State (within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India) are fighting a legal battle. It is unfortunate to note the failure on the part of the Central Government to intervene and put its foot down effectively and at an appropriate stage so as to hold the two away from legal arena. A public duty to choose and select the best of candidates on the basis of all India merit to occupy 15% seats in veterinary colleges spread through out the country is being mis construed and misunderstood as a power to rule the allotment of 15% all India quota seats. In the power crazy world, the two 'States' are no exception; both are striving to wield the power. (2) The veterinary Council of India (hereinafter Vci, for short) has been established under Section 3 of the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (hereinafter Vc Act, for short). The Indian Council of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1996KAR67; 1995(6)KarLJ580
ORDERBharuka, J 1. These Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the communication dated 21.9.1995 (Annexure-P) of the respondent - University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore under which it has been communicated to the First petitioner that the nine candidates nominated by it for admission to B.V.Sc. and A.H. Degrees cannot be admitted; as also for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second and third respondents to comply with the provisions of the Indian Veterinary Council Act (in short, 'the Central Act') and the Regulations made thereunder with special reference to take on rolls the nominees sent by the first petitioner.2. The Veterinary Council of India (in short, 'the Council') which has been established under Section 3 of the Central Act is the first petitioner herein. The second petitioner is one of the candidates who has been recommended for admission to the course in the College of the respondent University as per the letter of the Council at Annexur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(Delhi)394; 1996(38)DRJ358
Anil Dev Singh, J. (1) This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 seeking to restrain the defendant from holding the All India Entrance Examination in respect of 15% of the total number of seats of each Veterinary college to be filled through common entrance examination. The plaintiff. Veterinary Council of India, claims injunction on the strength of Regulation 5(8) of the Veterinary Council of India - Minimum Standards of Veterinary Education - Degree Course (BV Sc & AH) Regulations, 1993 (for short 'the Regulations') framed under the Indian Veterinary Council Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act').(2) The plaintiff has been established under section 3 of the Act for the purpose of regulating veterinary practice in the country as delineated in the Preamble thereto, which reads as follows :- 'An Act to regulate veterinary practice and to provide, for that purpose, for the establishment of a Veterinary Council of India and State Veterinary Councils and the maintenance of registers of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~43 * % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment:30. h August, 2019 + W.P.(C) 9472/2019 ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Saurabh Ahuja, Advocate versus ........ RESPONDENTS RAJAT VARSHNEY UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Through: Ms.Bharati Raju, CGSC for R-1/UOI. Mr.Naresh Kaushik and Ms.Vibhuti Tyagi, Advts. for UPSC/R-2. Mr.Shadan Farasat, Ms.Warisha Farasat and Ms.Rudrakshi Deo, Advts. for R-3/caveator. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI G.S. SISTANI, J.(ORAL) CM. APPL389602019 (Exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.2. Application stands disposed of. CAVEAT NO.872/2019 3. Counsel for the caveat enters appearance. Accordingly, the caveat stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 9472/2019 4. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal.5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), by which O.A. filed by responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1987P& H81
D.S. Tewatia, J.1. The petitioner, Dr. Sarwan Singh, has impugned in the present writ petition the action of respondent 4 the District Drugs Inspector, Hoshiarpur, who had prohibited him from keeping in his possession ion any allopathic drug for administration to the patients and who had further directed the chemists not to issue allopathic medicines to such patients as had been prescribed or were to be prescribed such medicines by the petitioner.2. The case set up in the petition by thc petitioner is that he is a Registered Medical Practitioner and had been so registered with the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicines, Punjab, respondent 3, vide registration certificate annexure S. l, that by notification dt. 2-10-1967, annexure P. 2, issued under sub-clause (iii) of clause (ee) of R. 2 of the drugs anal Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (for short to bc referred as 'the Drug Rules') made under the; provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, hereinafter referred to as the 'Drug A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2008(1)CTC545; AIR2008Mad127; 2008(3)AIRKarR210(FB); 2008(1)MLJ1217
ORDERA.P. Shah, C.J.1. This case has been referred to the Full Bench as the Division Bench found that there is divergence of opinion and, particularly, the ratio of the Division Bench decision in The University of Madras v. Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust and Anr. 2005 W.L.R 395 cannot be reconciled with the decision of the other Division Bench in Vinayaka Missions College of Nursing and Para-Medical Sciences v. The Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council : (2006)4MLJ753 .2. The challenge in the present petition is to the order of the second respondent Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, dated 08.8.2007, by which the University has granted provisional affiliation to Rukmani College of Education started by the petitioner Trust for running B.Ed. Course with an intake of 100 students for the academic year 2007-2008. The petitioner has questioned the order of the second respondent University on the ground that the petitioner is entitled for grant of affiliation for B.Ed. Course from the acad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 10 of 2006 and 6711 of 2007. 1. The legal questions in this batch of criminal appeals relate to the involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques, namely narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test for the purpose of improving investigation efforts in criminal cases. This issue has received considerable attention since it involves tensions between the desirability of efficient investigation and the preservation of individual liberties. Ordinarily the judicial task is that of evaluating the rival contentions in order to arrive at a sound conclusion. However, the present case is not an ordinary dispute between private parties. It raises pertinent questions about the meaning and scope of fundamental rights which are available to all citizens. Therefore, we must examine the implications of permitting the use of the impugned techniques in a variety of settings.2. Objecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR2002Kant211; ILR2002KAR300; 2003(4)KarLJ331
Bharuka, J.1. The controversy Involved herein relates to the method of admission of Post Graduate Medical and Dental courses in the colleges run by the private managements The crucial question is as to whether the college Managements are entitled to device and adopt their own individual yardsicks of determining the inter se merits of candidates appearing for the courses and give admissions to them as per their choice, or, they are mandatorily bound to adhere to the normal and procedure statutorily laid down by the University Grants Commission, Medical Council of India or the Dental Council, of India (in short UGC, MCI and DCI respectively), as the case may be.2. We find it proper to mention at the very threshold that the UGC. MCI and DCI have been established under the Parliamentary Acts. These Acts are University Grants Commission Act, 1956, Indian Medical Council Act. 1956 and the Dentists Act. 1948 (in short the 'UGC Act', 'MCI Act' and 'Dentists Act,). The said bodies, in order to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1991Mad246
1. The pivotal issue in this case is whether after the coming into force of the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987 (Act 52 of 1987), the State Government could withdraw the permission granted earlier to the Writ Petitioner to start a private Engineering College and the University of Madras could cancel or withhold affiliation to the college on the ground that the conditions imposed respectively by the State Government and the University for the grant have not been fulfilled. The other issues are only ancillary and answers thereto will depend on the answer to the above issue. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank in the writ petitions.2. The writ petitioner is a registered Trust by name The Adhiyamman Educational and Research Institution. The petitioner applied to the Government of Tamil Nadu for permission to start a new self-financing private Engineering College without involving am financial commitment on the part of the Government. A...
Tag this Judgment!