Court : Delhi
1. Controversy has been triggered, prompting filing of all these petitions, as a consequence of the decision of Government of NCT of Delhi in revising the school fee payable by the students studying in various private recognized Schools in Delhi. This decision is contained in order dated 11th February, 2009. Whereas, the parents body representing the students studying in these schools feel that enhancing the fee is unreasonable and without any proper procedure which was required to be followed as per the mandate of law and earlier judgment of this Court as well as the Supreme Court, the Management of these Schools feels otherwise. They are equally dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 11th February, 2009 with a reason just opposite, as according to them, its a meagre enhancement in the fee which fails to match financial burden cast upon the schools as a result of the revision in the pay scale of the Teachers and other staff of the Schools consequent upon implementation of the reco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2001)4GLR3048
D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J.1. A common judgment, in this petition, and in group of petitions arising from Bhavnagar being Special Civil Applications Nos. 941 of 1980, 4210 of 1985, 2716 of 1998, 4153 of 1991, 4427 of 1992, 4733 of 1992 and 4847 of 1992, group of petitions arising from Surat being Special Civil Applications Nos. 8882 of 1999, 8885 of 1999, 6519 of 1998, 6461 of 1996 and a petition arising from Vadodara being Special Civil Application No. 3537 of 1998, is being passed.2. In this group of petitions arising from Bhavnagar, Surat and Vadodara, the petitioners in some of the cases, who are land owners, have claimed a declaration that the reservation of the lands belonging to them for educational purposes of University stand statutorily lapsed, entitling the land owners to use of those lands, for their benefit by development and construction, in accordance with other regulatory provisions of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for brevity, hereinafter refe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G. S. Singhvi, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court whereby the writ petitions filed by the respondents were allowed, Section 32(5A) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, `the 1976 Act') was declared as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, void and inoperative and the conditions incorporated in the orders passed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA)sanctioning residential layout plans or work orders in terms of which respondents were required to pay/deposit various charges/sums specified therein were quashed and a direction was issued for refund of the amount. 2. With the formation of the new State of Mysore, it was considered necessary to have a uniform law for planned growth of land use and development and for the making and execution of town planning schemes. Therefore, the State Legislature enacted the Mysore Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short, `the Town Planning Act')....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(1)KLT10; AIR2012SCW207; AIR2012SC364; 2012CriLJ1001
1. Leave granted in the Special Leave Petitions filed by Shri Sumedh Singh Saini. 2. These appeals have been preferred against the orders dated 30.5.2007, 22.8.2007, 5.10.2007 and 4.7.2008 in Crl. Misc. No. 152- MA of 2007; order dated 19.9.2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 86286 of 2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 152-MA of 2007; and orders dated 2.11.2007 and 6.11.2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 93535 of 2007 in Crl. Misc. No. 152-MA of 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. For the sake of convenience of disposal of the appeals, we would refer only to the criminal appeals filed by the State. 3. The Appeals herein raise peculiar substantial questions of law as to whether the High Court can pass an order on an application entertained after final disposal of the criminal appeal or even suo motu particularly, in view of the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called Cr.P.C.) and as to whether in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachments made in Plot No.290A, Avvai Nagar, (New ASTC HUDCO), Hosur-635 109, Dharmapuri District by the 3rd respondent or any other person and retain the above said plot as park as per the site plan of Tamilnadu Housing Board, Hosur Housing Unit approved by the Director of Town and Country Planning.O R D E R1. Temple, constructed in a place earmarked for a park under a Scheme, is being used as a shield, against the law of encroachment.2. Petitioner has sought for a mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the encroachments made in Plot No.290A, Avvai Nagar, (New ASTC HUDCO), Hosur-635 109, Dharmapuri District by the 3rd respondent or any other person and retain the above said plot as park as per the site plan of Tamilnadu Housing Board, Hosur Housing Unit approved by the Director of Town and Country Plannin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers Yes may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes3. Whether the judgment should be Yes reported in the Digest?ORDER.1. The present judgment will dispose of three writ petitions filed by the Indian Olympic Association (the petitioner in W.P. 876/2007, hereafter referred to as "the IOA"), the Sanskriti School, petitioner in W.P. 1212/2007, (hereafter referred to as "the school") and the Organizing Committee of the Commonwealth Games, 2010, Delhi (petitioner in W.P. 1161/2008, hereafter referred to as "the Games Committee"). The common question involved is as to the applicability of the Right to Information Act (hereafter referred to as "the Act"), with broad reference to whether the writ petitioners are "Public Authorit(ies)" within the meaning of the term under Section 2(h) of the said Act. Petitioners facts and contentions:2. Briefly the facts of the case in W.P. 876/2007, filed by the IOA are that the IOA is the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2001(4)AWC3104
O.P. Garg, J. 1. Kunwar Pal Singh Rathi claiming himself to be a media person has brought, in public interest, the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for the following reliefs : '(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing a thorough investigation in the 'Ambedkar Park' project through an independent investigating agency on the basis of the prima facie offences disclosed in thereport dated 17.5.1999 (Annexure-1 to this writ petition) of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India against the High-profile personalities of the State as per the procedure of investigation and submission of charge-sheet under the Court monitoring laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 225, and in the case of Union of India v. S.K. Modi and Ors., (1974) 4 SCC 770. or In case the State police has proceeded with some investigation in the 'Ambedkar Park' project, then further investiga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2005(3)KLT823
ORDERK. Padmanabhan Nair, J.1. The accused in Crime No. 534 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Ernakulam have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case for quashing Annexure No. XX Complaint filed by the second respondent and also Annexure XXI First Information Report registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town North Police Station in pursuance of that complaint.2. In the Criminal Miscellaneous Case it was averred that the second respondent is the second accused in Crime No. RC 3(S)/1994, CBI Kerala registered under Section 120B read with Sections 302, 201 and 34 I.P.C. relating to the death of Sri. K.G. Munna, whose charred body was found in a partially burnt Ambassador Car at Thuvassery Kunnu on MLA Road, Kottapuram on 11.4.1992. The case was initially investigated by the local police and then by the Crime Branch of Kerala Police. The father of the deceased filed O.P. No. 15974 of 1992 before this Court and this Court directed the C.B.I. t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. Every criminal trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest. The journey, in the present case, has been navigated by the Designated Judge of the Special Court constituted under Section 23 of the Prevention of Terrorists Activities Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as POTA). In the Murder Reference and the connected appeals arising out of the judgment dated 16.12.2002, we are called upon to decide the legality and validity of the trial as also the sustainability of the judgment pronounced by the Designated Judge of the Special Court, POTA. By the impugned judgment, the learned Designated Judge has held that the prosecution has successfully brought home the charge of conspiracy against accused Nos. 1 to 3, for having entered into a conspiracy with the 5 slain terrorists who had attacked Parliament House on 13.12.2001 along with Mohd. Masood Azhar, Gazi Baba @ Abu Zehadi @ Abu Seqlain and Tariq Ahmed, all Pakistani nationals (declared as proclaimed offenders), to procure...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(3)KLJ699
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Certain questions relating to the grant of recognition to schools in Kerala and the conditions and procedure regulating such grant; and a further issue as to the availability or otherwise of any extra-statutory power for the Government to grant recognition to unrecognized schools, without following the prescribed statutory procedure, arise for decision in these writ petitions. They are therefore bunched, heard and hence, this common judgment.2. Having all the beneficiaries of the impugned decisions on its array, WP(C). 18050/ 2008 is treated as the lead case and exhibits are referred to, as numbered therein.Facts Encapsulated3. the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the Kerala Education Rules, 1959; for short, the 'Act' and the 'KER', respectively; contain provisions regulating grant of recognition, including approval to commence schools, Chapter V in KER deals with recognition.4. Acting on the opinion of a Committee appointed as per a Government Order dat...
Tag this Judgment!