Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Jul-23-2013
..... of proved cwp no.15639 o 6. misconduct or incapacity as per the provision of the judges (inquiry) act, 1968 and after an address by the state vidhan sabha supported by a majority of the total membership of the house and a majority of not less than two thirds of the members present and voting. keeping in view the above said object of the act, when the provisions of sections 8 and 10 of the act are read together for the purpose of their harmonious interpretation, it becomes clear that sections ..... another official from the office of respondent no.3. in this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that once the responsible officers of the state government were attending the proceedings before the lokayukta, provisions of section 23(1) of the act would stand complied with. further, it is not the case of the petitioner that he had been exonerated by another competent authority of the state government in the cwp no.15639 o 8. similar complaint. ..... are independent of each other. section 8 deals with the reference received by the lokayukta from the government,whereas under section 10 of the act, the lokayukta is competent to entertain the complaint moved by any person. complete procedure has been provided under the act. the preamble of the haryana lokayukta act,2002, reads as under :- an act to provide for the appointment and function of a lokayukta for enquiry and investigation into the allegations and grievances against public servants and for matters connected therewith. it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Jan-04-2013
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU. OWP No. 727 OF 201.AND OWP No. 804 OF 201.AND OWP No. 242 OF 201.1. Mohinder Singh and anr 2. Dr. Manohar lal Sharma 3. Peerzada Mohd. Sayeed 4. Satvir Gupta 5. Suman Lata Bhagat 6. Vikas Behal 7. Rattan Lal Tickoo 8. Sheikh Rafiq Ahmed Petitioners 1.State Th. Accountability Commission and ors 2.State Th. Accountability Commission and ors 3.State Th. Accountability Commission and ors 4.J&K Accountability Commission and ors. 5.State Th. Accountability Commission and ors 6.State Th. Accountability Commission and ors 7.State Th. Accountability Commission and ors 8.State of J&K and anr Respondent !Mr.S.K.Shukla, Advocate Mr. B.S. Salathia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Sharma, Advocate Mr. D.C. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anil Verma, Advocate Mr. U.K. Jalali, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Neha Bakshi, Advocate Mr. P.N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.A. Hamal, Advocate Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate Mr. Virender Bhat, Advocate Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on : Jul-18-2013
Swatanter Kumar, (Chairperson) 1. Applicant No.1 is a registered society and claims to be at the forefront in environment campaigns in Goa working not just towards conserving and protecting the ecology of Western Ghats but also towards demanding additional protection, including declaration of wild life sanctuary as a tiger reserve. The said applicant claims to be a member of MoEF National Committee on Identifying Parameters for Designating Ecologically Sensitive Areas in India. Applicant No.2 also claims to be the principal convener of the Save the Western Ghats March, which was a landmark event in environmental activism in India. Both these applicants have approached the Tribunal for interim relief for directing the respondents not to issue any consent/environmental clearance or NOC or permission under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Forest Conservation Act, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-20-2013
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.12869 & 12653 of 2013 In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ----------------- In W.P.(C) No.12869 of 2013 Sudhansu Sekhar Sabat and others Petitioners In W.P.(C) No.12653 of 2013 Orissa Private Engineering College Association, (OPECA) Petitioner -VersusState of Odisha represented through its Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Employment and Technical Education and Training, At- Niyojan Bhawan, Kharvela Nagar, Bhubaneswar and others For Petitioners : Opposite Parties. (in both the cases) Mr. Budhadev Routray Sr. Advocate M/s. Sambit Kar, S.K. Barik, S.Mohanty, B. Das, T.Sinha & S.K. Sethi [In W.P.(C) No.12869 of 2013]. M/s. Devi P. Dash & S.K. Barik [In W.P.(C) No.12653 of 2013]. For opposite parties : Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, Addl. Govt. Advocate [For O.P. No.1]. M/s. A.K. Mishra, A.K. Sahoo, S. Bhanja [For O.P.No.2-BPUT]. M/s. Subir Palit, A.K. Mahana, A.Mishra, A.Kejariwal & Mrs. R. Trip...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : Dec-20-2013
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.12869 & 12653 of 2013 In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ----------------- In W.P.(C) No.12869 of 2013 Sudhansu Sekhar Sabat and others Petitioners In W.P.(C) No.12653 of 2013 Orissa Private Engineering College Association, (OPECA) Petitioner -VersusState of Odisha represented through its Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Employment and Technical Education and Training, At- Niyojan Bhawan, Kharvela Nagar, Bhubaneswar and others For Petitioners : Opposite Parties. (in both the cases) Mr. Budhadev Routray Sr. Advocate M/s. Sambit Kar, S.K. Barik, S.Mohanty, B. Das, T.Sinha & S.K. Sethi [In W.P.(C) No.12869 of 2013]. M/s. Devi P. Dash & S.K. Barik [In W.P.(C) No.12653 of 2013]. For opposite parties : Mr. Amiya Kumar Mishra, Addl. Govt. Advocate [For O.P. No.1]. M/s. A.K. Mishra, A.K. Sahoo, S. Bhanja [For O.P.No.2-BPUT]. M/s. Subir Palit, A.K. Mahana, A.Mishra, A.Kejariwal & Mrs. R. Trip...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-17-2013
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL/CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.120 OF2012Manohar Lal Sharma .Petitioner Versus The Principal Secretary and Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.463 OF2012WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.429 OF2012WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.498 OF2012WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.515 OF2012AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.283 OF2013ORDER R.M. LODHA, J.The question for the purposes of this order really resolves itself into this: whether the approval of the Central Government is necessary under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act for short) in a matter where the inquiry/investigation into the crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act for short) is being monitored by the Court. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail, suffice, however, to say that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered preliminary enquiries (PEs) against unknown public servants...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-17-2013
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL/CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.120 OF2012Manohar Lal Sharma .Petitioner Versus The Principal Secretary and Ors. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.463 OF2012WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.429 OF2012WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.498 OF2012WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.515 OF2012AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.283 OF2013ORDER R.M. LODHA, J.The question for the purposes of this order really resolves itself into this: whether the approval of the Central Government is necessary under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE Act for short) in a matter where the inquiry/investigation into the crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act for short) is being monitored by the Court. It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail, suffice, however, to say that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered preliminary enquiries (PEs) against unknown public servants...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-05-2013
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 2 CIVIL APPEAL No.5130 OF 201.3 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21455 of 2008) S. Subramaniam Balaji .... Appellant(s) Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. .... Respondent(s) WITH TRANSFERRED CASE NO 11.OF 201.S. Subramaniam Balaji .... Appellant(s) Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J.SLP (C) No.21455 o1. Leave granted. 2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 25.06.2007 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 9013 of 2006 and 1071 of 2007 whereby the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the appellant herein. 3) Brief Facts: (a) The case relates to distribution of free gifts by the political parties (popularly known as freebies). The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK)- Respondent No.8 herein, while releasing the election manifesto for the Assembly Elections 2006, announced a Scheme of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Oct-04-2013
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + MAC.A. 805/2010 % Judgment reserved on:25. h July, 2013 Judgment delivered on:4th October,2013 SANTOSH CHHABRA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Appellants Mr. Jatinder Advocate. Kamra, Versus ABHISHEK GUREJA & ORS. ..... Respondents Represented by: Ms.Shantha Devi Raman, Advocate for Respondent No.3/Insurance Company. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT SURESH KAIT, J.1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 26.07.2010, whereby, ld. Tribunal has granted compensation for a sum of Rs.29,31,837/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.2. While granting the aforesaid compensation, ld. Tribunal has directed respondent No.2, insured / owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation and has exonerated the Insurance Company from any liability.3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued only one ground that the deceased Yashpal Chh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-02-2013
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. These appeals have been preferred against the judgments and orders of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 12632 of 2011, dated 10.10.2011 and 18.1.2012.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are as under:A. The legislature of Gujarat enacted the Gujarat Lokayukta Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘Act, 1986’), which provided for the appointment of a Lokayukta, who must be a retired Judge of the High Court. The said statute, was given effect to, and various Lokayuktas were appointed over time, by following the procedure prescribed under the Act, 1986, for the said purpose, i.e., the Chief Minister of Gujarat, upon consultation with the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court, and the Leader of Opposition in the House, would make a recommendation to the Governor, on the basis of which, the Governor would then issue requisite letters of appointment.B. The post of the Lokayukta became vacant...
Tag this Judgment!