Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD442; 2006(5)ALT361
ORDERV.V.S. Rao, J.PART-I INTRODUCTION:1. This common Judgment shall dispose of these petitions involving common questions for consideration. There are mainly three categories of petitioners. First category of petitioners (W.P. Nos. 9458, 10491, 10304 and 10773 of 2005) are the wholesale merchants of Vijayawada, who are also members of a society called Vijayawada Wholesale Commercial Complex Members Welfare Society (Merchants Association, for brevity). The petitioners in this sub-group are also members of their respective trade associations. Second category of cases is filed by the wholesale merchants, who are allegedly not members of the Merchants Association, but they are members of their respective trade associations. Vijayawada Daily Parcel Lorry Office Owners Welfare Association and other Lorry transporters filed third category of cases. The alleged restraint imposed on the right to carry on business by seizingtheir respective business places/shops brought them together for redres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2006(92)DRJ562
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The city of Delhi prides itself in a large green cover; the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Urban Development (2004-05) of the Fourteenth Lok Sabha, states that 19% of the city is 'green area', more than the garden city of Bangalore (at 13.57%). The report also states that 5050 hectares of the total green area is under the jurisdiction and control of Delhi Development Authority (DDA), which has developed 1600 acres of such spaces into parks of different kinds and sizes, woodlands, greenbelts, etc. In this case the petitioner, an association of residents of three blocks of the DDA Maya Enclave, seek a writ or direction enjoining the respondents, including DDA from changing the use and character of a green area, admeasuring 3000 square meters.2. The EA, EB and EC Blocks of Maya Enclave (hereafter collectively referred to as 'the colony') comprises of several flats constructed, and transferred to its allottees, by the DDA. In keeping with its policies, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2003KAR4771; 2003(4)KarLJ252
ORDERN. Kumar, J.1. In a student's career, how a pass, without a class and pass in the first attempt in the prescribed examination, can change his course of life is the subject-matter of this wirt petition. Facts in brief:The petitioner was admitted to first semester M.Tech. course in Computer Applications in Industrial Drives during the academic year 1999-2000 as against a free merit seat. The petitioner attended the classes regularly and was doing well in sessional tests. In the first semester, out of the total internal assessment marks carrying a maximum of 300, the petitioner secured 221 marks. The petitioner suffered serious attack of enteric fever from 23rd February, 2000 because of which he had to be shifted to Gudivada, his native place. He was advised complete rest up to 15th March, 2000. On account of the said ill-health, the petitioner could not attend the first semester examination conducted in March 2000. Therefore, in October-November 2000, the petitioner took first and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(14)SCALE353; 2010(1)LC114(SC); 2009(6)LHSC4116.
Deepak Verma, J.1. Leave granted.2. The principal question that emerges for consideration in these appeals is whether to sustain the order of demolition as passed by the Gauhati High Court vide impugned judgment and order or to put an imprimatur of this Court to the unauthorised constructions raised by M/s. Priyanka Estates International (P) Ltd. (Appellant No. 1 herein) beyond 51/2 floors. Facts material for deciding the said appeals are mentioned hereinbelow.3. For the sake of convenience, the facts appearing in SLP (C) No. 14480 of 2006 titled as Priyanka Estates International (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. are taken into consideration. Appellant No. 1 is a company of which Appellant Nos. 2 & 3 are Directors.4. Appellant No. 1 herein purchased an open piece of land approximately admeasuring 4.62 Kathas from one Smt. Nandita Banerjee on 9.8.1999 by registered deed of sale. Prior to execution of sale, the vendor of Appellant No. 1 applied to Guwahati Metropolitan Develop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 112(2004)DLT944
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. This writ petition which is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation raises a question of far reaching consequences and has wide ramifications. The Delhi Development Authority which is a creature of Delhi Development Act, 1957 acquired the land in question which was agricultural land being in J-Zone allegedly for development. It stands admitted that no approval of the Central Government for use of the land in terms of Section 11A of the said Act has been obtained.2. Admittedly since the date of acquisition till 1999 the first respondent herein did not take any step to move the Central Government for taking any action in terms of Section 11A of the Act. For three years the Central Government also did not take any steps pursuant to or in furtherance of the application filed by the first respondent herein for change in the land user. In the meantime, purported to be on the ground of protecting the land in question from further encroachment as also for other co-latera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 124(2005)DLT550; 2005(85)DRJ674
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seek a quashing order, in respect of the sanction of the building plans for alteration/ conversion of the existing building into a multiplex, mini cinema-cum-commercial complex at Savitri Cinema point Greater Kailash-II. This sanction was issued in favor of the 7th respondent. A consequential direction to restrain that respondent from raising construction and orders to quash the permission granted by various authorities imp leaded as respondents have also been claimed.2. The first petitioner is a registered Society; it claims to represent respondents of the Greater Kailash-II; the other petitioners are residents of that locality. Greater Kailash-II is spread over an area of about 3.40 acres containing 1680 residential plots of various sixs. It's estimated population is about 15,000. It is claimed that there are approximately 8500 vehicles in the entire colony. The petitioners have annexed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2005(2)JKJ63
V.K. Jhanji, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against order dated 29th April, 1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, OWP No. 853/93, dismissing the writ petition, being without any merit.2. The Jammu Municipal Authorities served notice dated 19th February, 1992 under Section 229 of the Municipal Act upon the appellant calling upon him to demolish within three days from the date of service of the notice the unauthorized construction of a shop situated at the main road at Talab Tilo, Jammu. Second notice dated 27th February, 1992 was served on him to demolish the construction within seven days failing which the same would be demolished at his risk and cost. Aggrieved by the notices, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Jammu and Kashmir Special Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by order dated 21st April, 1992. The appellant filed a Review Petition, seeking review of the above order passed by the T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2009AP456
ORDERG. Rohini, J.1. These three writ petitions which are based on the same set of facts are heard together and decided by this Common Order.2. The parties to all the writ petitions being common, for the sake of convenience they shall be referred to as they are arrayed in W.P. No. 22202 of 2006.3. The facts, in brief, are as under:The petitioners claim to be the joint owners of House Nos. 2-479, 2-480, 2-481, 2-481/1, 2-481/2, 2-481/3, 2-485,2-485/1 and 2-486 of Balajinagar, Near I.T.I. Circle in Cuddapah Municipal Corporation. The 5th respondent herein is in occupation of an adjacent premises bearing D. No. 2-484/1 of Balajinagar. He was granted a trade license for the year 2005-06 by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Cuddapah to carry on business in the said premises in the name and style of M/s. Eagle Restaurant and Bar. On an application made by the 5th respondent under the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of License of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Lice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 164(2009)DLT139
Sunil Gaur, J.1. In the year 2004, in pursuance to the advertisement (Annexure P-4) Petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Master in English in the Respondent - College. At that time, Petitioner was working on ad-hoc basis on the post of Master in English, which is a Gazetted Group-B post with the Respondent - College. Vide letter of 22nd December, 2005, (Annexure P-6), Petitioner was called upon to appear for the interview for the said post and to produce her experience certificate, etc. Petitioner had claimed age relaxation on the basis of 'No Objection Certificate' of 6th August, 2004, (Annexure P-5), which disclosed that the Petitioner was working as Master in English on ad-hoc basis since April 2001 with break in service in each year.2. When the Petitioner had appeared for interview on 23rd January, 2006, she was purportedly told that she was not Government Employee as per the new Rules of Department of Personnel Training (hereinafter referred to as 'DoPT'). According...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioners herein questioning the correctness of the impugned communication dated 20th October, 2005 bearing No. VTU/ACA/2005-06/A1/818 issued by the fourth respondent vide Annexure-L, have presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioners have sought for a direction, directing the fourth respondent to issue the Eligibility Certificate in respect of all the 43 students admitted to MBA course under the Management quota in the first petitioner-Institution for the academic year 2005-06. Further, petitioners have assailed the communication dated 24th October, 2005 bearing No. ED. 185/TEC/2005 vide Annexure-N issued by the third respondent and also to direct the third respondent to issue a corrigendum to the effect that, the approved intake of the first petitioner-Institution in respect of the MBA course is 60 and not 30.2. The petitioner 1 herein claims to be a Public and Charitable Trust by name Global Academy of Technology represented by its Trustee and...
Tag this Judgment!