Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(3)ALD456
ORDERMotilal B. Naik, J. 1. Before we decide the principal issue raised in these writ petitions, we briefly narrate the contentions raised in all these writ petitions.WPNo.2481 of 2000:This writ petition is filed by the State Election Commission, represented by its Secretary, Buddha Bhawan, Secunderabad. Petitioner has questioned the validity of the Ordinance No.3 of 2000 dated 5-2-2000 issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh and the consequential letter dated 10-2-2000 of the first respondent and seeks to quash the same as being untenable and repugnant to Article 243-E(3) of the Constitution of India and for issuing appropriate orders.2. According to the petitioner, as the term of ofice of the Mandal Parishads and Zilla Parishads in the State of Andhra Pradesh would be expiring on 17-3-2000 and 19-3-2000 respectively, it initiated action for conduct of elections to these bodies by taking appropriate steps, viz., addressing letters to all the District Collectors instructing them to take ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(2)ALT263
ORDERG.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. By this order, we are disposing of the writ appeals filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and its functionaries, Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission (for short, 'the State Commission') and some private individuals against order dated 20-6-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10965 of 2006 - N. Sekhar v. The Government of A.P. and Ors. and batch whereby he quashed notification dated 10-6-2006 issued by the State Commission under Article 243K of the Constitution of India read with Section 201 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the 1994 Act') and Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Elections) Rules, 2006 for election of the members of Zilla Parishad Territorial Constituencies (ZPTCs) and Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituencies (MPTCs) except those specified in the notification, as also electoral lists prepared in furtherance of that notification. Simultaneously, we are disposing of the writ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1994)1GLR310
S.D Dave, J.1. The present proceedings arise under Articles. 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India. They are at the instance of Lok Adhikar Sangh, an unregistered and unincorporated organisation said to be working since 1977. The proceedings have been characterised as the PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION. The proceedings appear to be the sequel to the resignation of Hon'ble The Home Minister and the letters prior to and after the said resignation addressed to the Hon'ble The Chief Minister of the State of Gujarat.2. Paragraph-1 of the petition demonstrates the facts and circumstances under which the proceedings have been initiated. It also gives the glimpses of what the prayers ultimately would be. Paragraph-1 of the petition may be quoted thus:The petitioner, Lok Adhikar Sangh, craves liberty to file this petition by way of public interest litigation raising the question of the protection of the life, liberty and property of the citizens of India in the State of Gujarat threatened by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai Madurai
(Prayer in W.P.No.11481 of 2008 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the return of request for the approval of appointment of the petitioner in the post of Waterman in fourth respondent School in his proceedings in O.Mu.No.2902/Aa3/06, dated 07.06.2006 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to approve of the appointment of the petitioner as Waterman in the fourth respondent School from the date of the appointment, i.e., 16.09.2004. Common Order: The issue involved in all these writ petitions relates to the appointment and approval of non-teaching staff in Aided Minority and Non-Minority Schools governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 and the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools (Regulation) Rules, 1974 framed in exercise of the powers conferred under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: May 28, 2015 + W.P.(C) 5033/2014 & CM APPL. No.10051/2014 MANISH DAK Through Mr. Tahir Advocate ..... Petitioner Ashraf Siddiqui, versus SECRETARY, INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & ORS Through ..... Respondents Mr. Vikram Singh, Proxy Counsel for Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA JUDGMENT % KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to question the tenability of the order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as learned Tribunal), whereby it dismissed the Original Application being O. A. No.2334/2012 preferred by him.2. Facts of the case in brief are that the Agricultural Scientists Recruitment Board (ASRB) had issued a notification dated 29.08.2011 for holding a competitive examination for filling up the vacancies of Scientists in the Indian Council of Agricultur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2006(2)JKJ326
Y.P. Nargotra, J.1. Petitioner through this election petition seeks to challenge the election of Shri Tassadiq Hussain-respondent. No. 4 to the Legislative Council in Biennial election held in the year 2005, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir for the seat reserved for a person resident of District Poonch, on the ground of his being ineligible to contest elections.2. Reservation of a seat in the Legislative Council for a person, resident of district Poonch has been provided in Section 50 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1957 which reads as follows:50. Composition of Legislative Council.(i) Legislative Council shall consist of thirty six members, chosen in the manner provided in the section.(2) Eleven members shall be elected by the members of the Legislative Assembly from amongst persons who are residents of the Province of Kashmir and are not members of the Legislative Assembly.Provided that of members so elected, at least one shall be a resident of Tehsil Ladakh and at least o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 1. 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to 1 (2010) 12 SCC7942 Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 1. 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to 1 (2010) 12 SCC7942 Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1085 OF2013BIR SINGH .APPELLANT(S) VERSUS DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. .RESPONDENT(S) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S) 99359937 OF2014WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).10081 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8141 OF2014CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8802 OF2012CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).1086 OF2013CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF2018[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P(C) NO.36324 OF2017 JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.36324 of 1. 2017 2. In State of Uttaranchal vs. Sandeep Kumar Singh and others1 [Civil Appeal No.4494 of 2006) the following question arose for consideration of this Court: Whether a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste in relation to a particular State would be entitled or not, to the benefits or concessions allowed to 1 (2010) 12 SCC7942 Scheduled Caste candidate in the matter of employment, in any other State?. 3. In the course of the deliberations that took place this Court noticed the Constitution Bench judgments o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant132; AIR1964Mys132; (1963)2MysLJ302
Hegde, J.1. These Writ Petitions relate to admissions to professional and technical colleges. Some of petitioners have applied for admission to the course leading to the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering, whereas others have sought admission to the Pre-Professional class in Medicine. Their applications have been rejected. Hence, each of them has prayed for a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ or direction, directing respondents 1 and 2 to admit him to the Engineering College or to the Medical College as the case may be. In their affidavits, they have challenged the validity of Government Orders No. ED 75 TGL 63, Bangalore, dated 26-7-1963 (to be hereinafter referred to as Ex. C) and ED 84 TGL 63, Bangalore dated 26th July 1963 (to be hereinafter referred to as Ex. D). From the arguments advanced at the Bar, the following broad contentions emerge:'(i) Ex. C is fraud on the Constitution; though the Order in question cannot be said to be patently and plainly outside the li...
Tag this Judgment!