Court : Guwahati
judgment and order (cav) [1] the basic issue involved in these two writ petitions is as to whether the governor of a state is to act only with the aid and advice of the council of ministers in all circumstances or the governor is empowered being the custodian of an executive and other powers under various articles of the constitution of india is entitled to exercise independent/discretionary powers. the other issues including the right of the governor to address and send messages to the legislative assembly was legally permissible in the fact situation involved in this case. the concerned articles of the constitution of india in this regard are article 174 and article 175. the other issues involved are incidental to the above issues. [2] the background facts involved in this proceeding have seen set out in the interim order passed on 17.12.2015, which reads as follows: backdrop 3. the party wise composition of the arunachal pradesh state legislature in the 60 member house is congress-47, bjp-11 and independent-2. 4. the sitting of the sixth sessions of the state assembly was notified for 14.1.2016 by the governor on 3.11.2015 and at that stage, the 16 congress mlas gave notice for removal of the deputy speaker. next the 11 bjp mlas issued notice for removal of the speaker and this move against the petitioner was supported by 2 independent mlas. 5. the 13 mlas in the opposition requested the governor for pre-poning the assembly session for considering the speaker's removal. 6. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
judgment and order (oral) 1. heard mr. ss dey, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. the respondents are represented by ms. s. chutia, the learned standing counsel for the water resources department. 2. as a registered contractor under the water resources department, the petitioner executed flood damage repairing works, to protect the left embankment of the desang river from rajgarh to pathaligarh from 10th km (dehinga konwar gaon) to 12th km (lekonia-tipomia), as those areas were affected by river erosion in the year 2003-04. the schemes for the repairing works were prepared by the executive engineer, sivasagar water resources division and after the petitioner submitted his tenders, the work orders (annexure-2 series) were issued, for total contract work estimated at rs.1,06,77,807/-. 3. the allotted works were completed by the contractor and were measured and verified by the departmental authorities and also by the d.c. of the sivasagar district. the executive engineer on 6.6.2006 (annexure-v), certified in writing that, 45 work orders of rs.98,568/- each; 33 work orders worth rs.85,000/- each; and 33 work orders worth rs.1,04,159/- each, were successfully completed by the petitioner within 45 days. this certification was made by the executive engineer in consultation with the secretary and the chief engineer of the water resources department. 4. since no payment was received for the completed works, the contractor filed the wp(c) no.358/2009, where he .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
judgment and order 1. heard mr. b. banerjee, learned senior counsel for the appellants. none appears for the respondents. 2. this appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 29.6.2005 passed by the learned civil judge (senior division), golaghat in title appeal no. 16/2004 reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2004 passed by the learned civil judge (junior division), golaghat in title suit no. 10/2002, whereby suit of the plaintiff was decreed. 3. though it was not specifically mentioned in the judgment of the learned trial court that the counter-claim was rejected, in view of the decision in issue no. 7 rejecting the claim of the defendant for compensation, it must be taken that the counter-claim was dismissed. 4. the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract for sale of a plot of land for a consideration amount of rs. 10,000/- the plaintiff had sold to the defendant said plot of land measuring 1 bigha 1 katha described in the schedule to the plaint by executing and registering a sale deed dated 26.5.1997. on the very same day, an agreement was executed by the defendant whereby he agreed that on return of the said sum of rs. 10,000/- by the plaintiff within a week of expiry of five years, the defendant will execute a re-conveyance deed in respect of the suit property. it is pleaded that the plaintiff, after arranging the sum of rs. 10,000/-, went to the defendant s house on 12.5.2002 and expressed his readiness and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
judgment and order (oral) 1. heard mr. f.u. borbhuya, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. also heard mr. k.k. parasar, the learned central govt. counsel (cgc) representing the respondents. 2. the petitioner was a rifleman in the 14th assam rifles and he was prosecuted under section 69 of the army act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the army act ), for committing a civil offence, punishable under section 20(b) of the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the the ndps act ). the specific charge against the rifleman was that he was found in possession of 36 kgs. of ganja on 30.11.1999, at the guwahati railway station. the petitioner was arrested and handed over to his employer and a summary court martial proceeding was drawn up against him by the commandant of the 14 assam rifles. 3. the trial commenced at 10:00 hrs on 6.11.2000 and after closure of trial at 13:05 hrs., the sentence of 89 days rigorous imprisonment (ri) in military custody was ordered against the rifleman. following the sentencing in the summary court martial, the petitioner was detained in military confinement but after his release from imprisonment, the rifleman was assigned regular duties w.e.f. 5.2.2001. 4. however after 26 months of normalcy, a show cause notice was issued on 3.4.2003 (annexure-3) by the dig with the following allegations:- (a) you were granted 60 days el wef 20 nov 99. during your said leave, on 30 nov 99 at 0645 h at guwahati rly .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
oral order: 1. heard md. m.h. rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the appellant. also heard mr. s.k. chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. this appeal is preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 08.02.2005, passed by the learned civil judge (senior division), nagaon in title appeal no. 18/2004 affirming the judgment and decree dated 09.02.2004, passed by the learned civil judge (junior division) no. 1, nagaon in title suit no. 48/2000. 3. the appellant, assam state co-operative marketing and consumers federation ltd., a co-operative institution registered under the co-operative societies act, 1949 filed a suit against the food corporation of india and its functionaries praying for a declaration that office memorandum no. sands/dif/cost/97-2000 dated 02.05.2000 is illegal and inoperative, permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the differential cost as mentioned in the aforesaid memorandum and not to give effect to the memorandum no. sands/dif.cost/97-98 dated 19.05.2000. 4. the case set out in the plaint is that the plaintiff deals in procurement and distribution of public distribution system (pds) items. as per practice, on the basis of allotment order, the deputy commissioner (fands), nagaon allots to the plaintiff as well as other allottees quantities of rice, both under apl and bpl categories. in terms of an allotment order dated 16.03.2000 for the month of march, 2000, the plaintiff lifted 500 quintals of apl .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
judgment and order (oral): 1. heard ms. a. bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner union i.e. assam chah mazdoor karmachari sangha which is espousing the cause of the delinquent clerk pulak chandra borthakur of the dufflating t.e. the management is represented by the learned counsel mr. a. sarma. 2. while serving as a garden clerk in the dufflating t.e., a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner on 20.8.2011 (annexure-1) but this notice was discarded and eventually the charge memo was issued on 21.9.2001 (annexure-3), where 21 charges were leveled against the workman, where it was alleged that the garden clerk was responsible for preparing the attendance record, plucking accounts and payment of wages for the workers engaged during the tea plucking session and the substance of the charge was that the attendance records were manipulated to illegally show presence of absentee workers and thereby payment were shown to have been made to them in the wage register but those amounts were actually misappropriated by the delinquent clerk. 3. since the management did not press the charge nos,14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21 and failed to prove the charge nos.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 19, in this proceeding we are concerned only with 5 charges and those are extracted here-in-below for ready reference: .. 2. it is alleged that smt. amirun nissa was paid wages for the period as follows: from 20-06-2001 to 03-07-2001 = rs.420.78 from 04-07-2001 to 17-07- .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
..... therefore the appointment of the respondent no.4, who was serving in a lower scale in the organization, is found to be inconsistent with the decision taken in the first board s meeting to man the post of secretary through appointment of acs officer, on deputation basis. 10. ..... in the first meeting of the board held on 18.01.1989, it was clearly specified that the secretary should be appointed on deputation of acs officers and that is how the various senior officers were deputed from time to time, to man the post of secretary in the urban board. ..... to depute acs officer to man the post of secretary, steps were taken to appoint junior employee to the high post of secretary without waiting for the acs officer. 12. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. heard mr. r.c. sanchati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. also heard mr. sheeladitya, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of reversal dated 24-12-2003 passed by the learned civil judge (sr. div.) no. 2, kamrup, guwahati in title appeal no. 21/1992 whereby the judgment and decree dated 24-04-1992 passed by the learned sadar munsiff, guwahati in title suit no. 20/1982 was set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent was decreed on appeal, the defendant as appellant has preferred this second appeal before this court. 3. the plaintiffs case, as setout in the plaint, is that he had purchased a plot of land measuring 3k-6l covered by dag no. 686(kha) of k.p. patta no. 280 of village kamakhya under jalukbari mouza, more fully described in schedule- a to the plaint from the proforma defendant on 22-09-1975 by means of a registered deed of sale pursuant where to he has also been enjoying possession in respect thereof. the defendant had also purchased a plot of land measuring 3k-10l covered by dag no. 686 of k.p. patta no. 280 of the same village, described in schedule- b to the plaint, from the proforma defendant and has been enjoying possession in respect of the land purchased by him. the land purchased by the plaintiff is situated adjacent to the schedule- b land of the defendant and the plaintiff and the defendant had been peacefully residing in their respective plot of land having a friendly .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. heard mr. r. sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners (defendants). the respondents (plaintiffs) are represented by the learned counsel mr. b. padun. 2. the title suit no.8/2007 was filed for restoration of possession under section 6 of the specific relief act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 1963 act ). it was alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff no.1s cousin brother (defendant no.1) on 26.1.2007 forcibly dispossessed the plaintiffs from the suit land. the suit was decreed on 29.11.2008 (annexure-3) by the learned civil judge, lakhimpur by declaring the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land and also for recovery of possession from the defendants. 3. assailing the legality of the impugned decree, the defendants submit that since recovery of government land was sought in the case, the suit was not maintainable under sub-clause (b) of the section 6(2) of the 1963 act. moreover, since the title was declared in summary proceeding under the 1963 act, the petitioners contend that the decree was without jurisdiction. 4. in support of his contention, mr. r. sarma, the learned counsel for the petitioners cites kailash kalita vs. sanjib sharma reported in 2006 (suppl.) glt 750 to project that in a restoration proceeding under section 6 of the 1963 act, the court should answer the issue on illegal dispossession and title shouldnt be the concern of the court in such suits. 5. supporting the decree, the plaintiffs however contend that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
1. heard mr. lalsawirema, learned counsel for the applicant/respondent no. 1 (returned candidate) and mr. c. lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by mr. johny l. tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 1/election petitioner. also heard mr. m. zothankhuma, learned senior counsel for election commission of india. 2. this is an application under order 7, rule 11 of the civil procedure code, 1908 for rejection of the election petition for want of cause of action and for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the representation of the people act, 1951 (for short the act). 3. rejection of the election petition has been sought for primarily on three grounds. firstly, the election petition does not disclose material facts to constitute a cause of action to warrant trial of the election petition. secondly, the prayer made in the election petition is beyond the relief which can be granted to an election petitioner under the act. thirdly, since the election petitioner has sought for a declaration that not only the election of the returned candidate be declared as void, he should also be declared as the elected candidate, all the other contesting candidates of the constituency should have been made parties to the election petition, which has not been done. this is a violation of the mandatory provision of section 82 of the act. 4. opposite party no. 1 i.e. the election petitioner has filed written objection. it is contended that there is no .....
Tag this Judgment!