Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(2)KLJ235; 2007(1)KCCRSN16; 2007(1)AIRKarR402
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. The petitioners in all these Writ Petitions are challenging the notifications dated 17.2.2003 and 15.3.2003 issued by the Government of Karnataka, complaining that their preferential rights under Rule 11(2) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 are affected by those notifications. Therefore, all these petitions are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.2. In WP.No. 18445/2003 the petitioner is National Mineral Development corporation Limited a Government of India Enterprises. On 11/12.12.1968 they made an application for mining lease over an area of 4025 hectares of land situated in Ramadurga, Bellary District, Karnataka. No orders were passed within the stipulated period on the said application. It is deemed to have been rejected. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a revision before the revisional authority-Central Government and the revision was allowed directing the State Government to consider the application af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC894; JT2005(1)SC507; 2005(3)KarLJ17; (2005)3SCC91; (2005)2UPLBEC1264
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This appeal and connected appeals were filed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 2nd July, 1998 whereby the Division Bench disposed of Writ Appeal No. 1955 of 1993 alongwith Writ Appeal No. 777 of 1993.2. Facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are -- the Respondent Association Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group filed a Public interest petition challenging the building licence issued for construction of multi-storeyed/multi-apartments on Site Nos. 403 and 443 in IInd and IIIrd Cross in III Block, Koramangala Layout, Bangalore, on the ground that it is illegal, void and prayed for quashing of the licence and direction to demolish the building already constructed on the site. It was submitted that the residents in the area had acquired sites and built houses on the understanding and under the bona fide belief that the lay out would be developed and maintained in accordance with law. Grievance of the Associa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
M. Sharma, J. 1. The writ petitioner, in this writ petition has assailed the notice dated 28-2-94 (Annexure-13) and 5-5-94 (Annex-ure-17) issued by the Gauhati Metropolitan Development Authority (in short G.M.D.A.) by which the petitioner has been directed to discontinue the construction of the building in the 6th floor and also to demolish the 4th, 5th and 6th floors which were alleged to be constructed without the permission of the G.M.D.A. 2. The G.M.D.A. and the Chief Executive Officer, G.M.D.A. are made respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and the Gauhati Municipal Corporation (in short G.M.C.) and its Commissioner are impleaded as Respondents 3 and 4 and the State of Assam has been Impleaded as Respondent No. 5 respectively. 3. The dispute in this writ petition is regarding the permission for construction/ extension of the existing building of the petitioner for which he filed application before the G.M.C. for further construction of his existing building on the 4th 5th and 6th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2005KAR3710; 2005(4)KarLJ481
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. These batches of writ petitions are filed by the owners of agricultural and/or converted lands, house sites, residential/farm houses, companies and builders and others questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the acquisition of vast extent of lands for a development scheme called ARKAVATHI LAYOUT. The main features of the layout, as mentioned in the report of the Engineering Department of the BDA, are:(a) Total extent of land required : 2750 acres(b) Proposed residential sites : 28600(c) Civic Amenity sites : 50(d) Commercial sites : 150(e) Total estimation : Rs. 933.47 Crores(f) Total amount received : Rs. 981.36 Crores(g) Saving : Rs. 47.89 Crores(h) No. of villages covered : 16(i) No. of applicants : 2,32,000The details of various dimensions of the residential sites, the extent of land used for various purposes such as residential sites, park and play grounds, civic amenities, roads etc., the amount that would be realised from the sites, the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2002)3UPLBEC2569
S.P. Mehrotra, J. 1. The petitioners have filed this writ petition, inter-alia praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government Orders dated 28.3.1998 and 22.2.1999 issued by respondent No. 1 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition) and further for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 not to withdraw or transfer any amount from the Zila Nidhi Fund of the Zila Panchayat, Banda towards payment of salaries of teaching and non-teaching staff and to meet other expenses of the Zila Parishad Krishi Mahavidyalaya, Banda, and further for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to pay back amount of Rs. 36,03,000/- withdrawn from the Zila Nidhi Fund of Zila Panchayat, Banda under the Government Order dated 28.3.1998 and 22.2.1999 to the Zila Nidhi Fund of Zila Panchayat, Banda with interest at the rate of 18...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(2)ALD2; 2000(1)ALT385
1. CCCA No.36 of 1998 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 11-3-1997 passed by the learned 111 Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in OS No.311 of 1980 by the unsuccessful defendants 2 and 5 while arraying the other defendants in the suit as respondents 2 to 7.2. CCCA No.58 of 1998 has been preferred by the remaining defendants 1, 3, 4 and 6 to 8 against the same judgment and decree in OS No.311 of 1980 while arraying the defendants, 1, 2 and 5 as respondents 2 to 4. The plaintiff in the suit is the first respondent in both the appeals.3. Initially an ex parts decree was passed on 24-12-1981 when all the defendants remained ex parte in the suit; Later the said decree was set aside pursuant to the orders passed in IA No.392 and 393 of 1983 qua the defendants 2 and 5 alone on 20-3-1989. The petition filed by the 7th defendant in IA No.436 of 1983 was dismissed. The petitions filed by the remaining defendants seeking to set aside the exparte decree als...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Rajesh Balia, C.J. and Barin Ghosh, J.1. In all these writ petitions the constitutional validity of Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repeal Act of 2006') has been challenged.The petitioners, different in each writ petition, are alleging themselves to represent the interest of the persons employed at Bihar Agriculture Marketing Board, Market/Committees/Bazar Samities, the agriculturists and the Members of the Board / the Committees/Samites.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have raised number of contentions which were of various shades and colours but in substance, the contention was(A) that the impugned Act has been enacted without application of mind and a colourable piece of legislation because the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1960') had been tested and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as a reasonable restriction on freedom of marketing agriculture produce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(2)ALLMR482; 1999(3)BomCR401; (1999)2BOMLR758; [1999(82)FLR389]; (1999)IILLJ718Bom; 1999(2)MhLj410
ORDERN.J. Pandya, J.1. First of the two petitions is filed by the company and the second one is filed by the employee who claims to be the workman. Relationship of master and servant is not in dispute. According to the company, the employee was part of managerial staff and therefore he would not be a workman as per definition under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Needless to say, according to the employee, he is a workman under the said definition.2. The events of termination was in the year 1982 when section 2(s) of the said Act as originally provided was in force. By Amendment Act, 1982 some of the clauses of the said Act were amended and one of them happens to be the said section 2(s). The amendment was not brought into force forthwith. It was brought into force in the year 1984. As against the termination order dated 15-9-1982, Reference could be made in the year 1984 as by that time the amended section 2(s) was brought into force. In the trial Court, reliance wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR75; (2002)1BOMLR62; 2002(2)MhLj631
S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. All the above petitions raise certain common issues of law and involve similar facts, hence we are disposing of the same by this common judgment. 2. In Writ Petition No. 1749 of 1999 Cipla Limited and Anr. v. Union of India, and Ors. the brief facts and submissions are as under :-- 3. The First Petitioner Company is a domestic pharmaceutical company which manufactures and sells various pharmaceutical bulk drugs and formulations. The present petition is filed challenging :-- (a) The totally arbitrary, unjustified and mala fide refusal by the Respondents to issue the exemption notification to the petitioners to which they are entitled, and which has already been directed to be issued exempting Salbutamol and its formulations manufactured by the firstPetitioners from the ambit of price control in view of the new process developed by the petitioners by virtue of its indigenous R & D, and in view of Drugs (Price Control) Order of 1987 providing for such an exemption,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)ILLJ939Bom
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.1. This proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has arisen out of an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected an Application filed by the Management, questioning the maintainability of a Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The ground taken in the application was that the appropriate Government under Section 2(a) is not the Central Government (which made the reference), but the State Government.2. The controversy in the present case involves the question as to whether the Central Government is the appropriate Government, under Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in relation to Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. The Company is the petitioner before the Court and has submitted: that the appropriate Government in its case under Section 2(a) is not the Central Government, but the State Government and that consequently, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal was in e...
Tag this Judgment!