Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: (anoop v. mohta, j.) rule returnable forthwith. heard finally with the consent of the parties along with connected matters, therefore, a common judgment, as facts and circumstances are similar and so also the referred and the relied judgments and the laws. 2. by this petition, the petitioner (in w.p. no. 5530/12) has invoked articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india and prayed as under: protect the services of the petitioner in view of latest judgment of the hon'ble supreme court in case of kavita solunke in slp no. 5821/12 decided on 9.8.2012 (annexure no.6), reported in 2012(5) mh.l.j. 921 by quashing and setting aside the termination order dated 18.2.2010 issued by the respondent (annexure no. 5 ) and reinstating the petitioner in the services as assistant teacher, in the interest of justice. 3. the petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher by the respondent/chief officer, municipal council, wardha, against the vacancy reserved for scheduled tribe category based upon a caste certificate belonging to halba-scheduled tribe on 29.7.1998. the petitioner was working on the post accordingly. the respondent/management withhold the salary of the petitioner for non production of the caste certificate (the certificate) which was pending since 2002. by order dated 18.7.2005, this court directed the caste scrutiny committee (the committee) to dispose of petitioner's case within a period of four months with the observation that if the report is adverse, it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
c.v. bhadang, j. 1. rule. rule made returnable forthwith. the petition is heard finally with consent of the parties. 2. by this petition, the petitioners challenge the acquisition of their land under the land acquisition act, 1894 ('central act' for short) for the purpose of laying of bye-pass at buldhana which is said to be the part of malkapur-solapur state highway. 3. the brief facts are that the petitioner nos.1 to 4 (the name of the petitioner no.1 has, since been deleted) are the owners of gat no. 170, while the petitioner nos.5 to 7 are the owners of gat no.169 of mouza sagwan, tahsil and district-buldhana. a proposal for acquisition of portion of the said fields of the petitioners along with others was received in the office of the respondent no.5 executive engineer, public works department, zilla parishad, buldhana on or about 8.4.2008. according to the petitioners, they had not received any notices for joint measurement. the petitioners also contended that the proposed acquisition was not necessary for laying the bye-pass, as the said purpose was already taken care of by portion of the road from buldana to nandrakoli. the petitioners contended that thus the proposed acquisition was not in public interest. it appears that a notification under section 4 of the central act was published on 28.8.2012. the petitioners sent their objections, although specifically section 5a of the central act was not mentioned therein. that objection was jointly sent on 24.9.2012. it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. the petitioner-employer has filed this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india assailing the order of reference dated 21.1.2010 passed by respondent no. 2 and referring the controversy to the industrial tribunal, nagpur. the said reference as reproduced in schedule appended to the order dated 21.1.2010 is reproduced below : "whether the members of maharashtra general kamgar union working in m/s general manager, pix transmission limited, j-7, midc, nagpur are entitled for payment of minimum wages as per notification dated 16.4.2007 with arrears ?" 2. the challenge raised is basically on the ground that entire controversy as presented to respondent no. 2 has not been placed for consideration before the industrial court and petitioner/employer is, therefore, precluded from pointing out that the demand of minimum wages as raised is itself erroneous and misconceived. it is further urged that as wages are being paid at a rate which is more than the rate of minimum wages as per settlement dated 14.8.2006 and that settlement was for a period of three years and contained a clause which prohibited respondent no. 3 union from raising any financial demand, the authority ought to have seen that there was no industrial dispute or dispute as defined in section 2 (k) of the industrial disputes act,1947. this court issued notice in writ petition on 28th october 2010 and thereafter the matter came to be admitted on 9th june 2011. further proceedings in reference .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral order: (.r. gavai, j.) 1. the petitioners have approached this court being aggrieved by the notification dated 08.06.2015 insofar as it fixes the maximum sale price of bg-i cotton seeds at rs.730/- per packet and of bg-ii cotton seeds at rs.830/- per packet. 2. the petitioner no.1 is the association duly registered under the societies registration act, 1860 comprising of 40 seed companies as its members. the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are producers of various seeds including bt. cotton seed in all parts of india including maharashtra. the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are members of the petitioner no.1 association whereas the petitioner no.4 is a shareholder of the petitioner no.3 company. 3. the petition was initially listed for admission on 12.06.2015. after hearing mr. singhvi, the learned senior counsel, we had issued notice returnable on 16.06.2015. yesterday when the matter was listed, an affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of the state. we have extensively heard mr. singhvi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and mr. sunil manohar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the state government. 4. the main contentions as raised by mr. singhvi, the learned senior counsel are as under:- (i) that, for the last four years, the price of bg-i and bg-ii cotton seeds is static at rs.830/- and rs.930/-. though on account of increase in production costs, a demand was made by the association to the state government for increasing the maximum .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1. this petition is filed by the agricultural produce market committee challenging the judgment and order dated 17-12-2005 passed by the industrial court, nagpur, in complaint (ulpn) no.574 of 2002. the industrial court, by the impugned judgment and order, has directed the petitioner-market committee to pay to the respondent no.2-complainant the subsistence allowance as per the provisions of clause 25(5-a) of the model standing orders till the suspension of the respondent-complainant is revoked or till the final order is passed after completion of the departmental enquiry, whichever occurs earlier. 2. in the complaint filed under section 28 of the maharashtra recognition of trade unions and prevention of unfair labour practices act, 1971 invoking item 9 of schedule iv of the said act, it was alleged that the provisions of the industrial employment (standing orders) act, 1946 [for short, "the employment (standing orders) act"] were applicable to the establishment of the petitioner-market committee and as per the provisions of clause 25(5-a) of the model standing orders framed thereunder, the respondent-complainant was entitled to subsistence allowance at the rate of 75% of the basic pay after completion of 90 days from the date of suspension, i.e. 30-3-2002, and at the rate of 100% after completion of 180 days. however, the petitioner-market committee was paying subsistence allowance to the respondent-complainant at the rate of 50% of the wages as per the provisions of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: (b.p. dharmadhikari, j.) 1. by this petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, the petitioner, a citizen of india, claims that respondent no. 7 has become disqualified and, therefore, ceases to be a member of state legislative assembly from umred constituency of nagpur district because of his conviction on 24.04.2015 by the chief judicial magistrate, first class, bhiwapur. the declaration is claimed under article 191 (1) of the constitution of india with further declaration under article 190(3)(a) read with section 8(3) of the representation of the people act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as r.p. act, 1951), that the said seat is vacant. a communication sent by the office of the governor of state of maharashtra to respondent no. 1 election commission is also assailed on the ground that it is without jurisdiction and unconstitutional. writ is sought to respondent no. 1 to immediately initiate process for bye-election from umred constituency as mandated under section 151 of the representation of the people act, read with its section 151a. by inviting attention to policy decisions incorporated in letters dated 07.08.2013 and 13.10.2015, a writ is also sought to respondent nos. 1 to 4 to set up a mechanism and evolve a procedure accordingly to facilitate immediate action against the elected representatives of people in such matters. 2. the hon'ble speaker of legislative assembly and the hon'ble governor for state of maharashtra were initially .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: (a.b. chaudhari, j.) 1. a common judgment and order dated 25.6.2012 in writ petition nos.2490/2012 and 2491/2012, passed by the learned single judge, is under challenge in these two letters patent appeals. 2. in support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals made the following submissions. (a) the members of the managing committee of respondent no.4 - co-operative society are 13 from the elected category and 2 from the nominated category and thus, the strength of the committee is 15. the motion of no confidence was passed against the appellants with 9 votes. according to shri patil, the learned counsel for the appellant in both appeals, it is an admitted fact that the notice of motion of no confidence was given to only 13 elected members of the committee and the 2 nominated members, namely one from a district central cooperative bank and the other, namely the representative of district deputy registrar co-operative societies were not at all noticed of the said meeting of motion of no confidence. consequently, those two members could not attend the meeting. advocate shri patil continued to argue that those two nominated members of the committee had right to participate in the meeting of motion of no confidence in terms of rule 57a of the maharashtra co-operative societies rules, 1961 (for short the rules of 1961) though they may not have right to vote in such meeting. due to this default, the very motion of no confidence stands .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: (b.p. dharmadhikari, j.) 1. judgment delivered by the learned single judge of this court on 12.10.1999 in writ petition no. 1055/1999 is, questioned by the appellants in this letters patent appeal. the letters patent appeal came to be admitted on 22.10.1999 and on 16.10.2000, this court granted interim stay in terms of prayer clause (a), thereby staying the operation and effect of the judgment of the learned single judge. 2. shri kalmegh, learned counsel for the appellants points out that writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india was filed by a local authority/planning authority for amravati municipal corporation area and by a competent authority under the provisions of maharashtra slum areas (improvement, clearance and redevelopment) act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 act for short). the appellant no.2 is a competent authority empowered under section 3 of the 1971 act. in exercise of that power, and after recording satisfaction under its section 4, a notification was published in government gazette on 11.11.1993, notifying the area covered by respondent no.1-textile mill as slum improvement area. that notification was questioned by filing an appeal under section 4 belatedly on behalf of respondent no.1. the maharashtra slum areas tribunal, mumbai vide its judgment delivered on 31.07.1997 allowed said appeal no.87/1996. appeal has been allowed basically on the ground that slum has been declared on lands which vests in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
oral judgment: (anoopv. mohta, j.). 1] the petitioners the producers of the cotton seed have challenged the statutes and notifications of the state of maharashtra (the state) of price control of cotton seed in maharashtra. 2] in w.p. 2207 of 2008 (aicba v. state of maharashtra and ors.), the petitioners challenged the validity of the maharashtra cotton seed (regulation of supply, distribution, sale and fixation of sale price) ordinance, 2008 (the ordinance) (published in the official gazette on 23.05.2008) and notification dated 23.05.2008 (the notification) fixing the maximum retail price (mrp) of bt. cotton seeds. an interim order was passed on 27.06.2008 ...whenever the ordinance is issued or legislation is evolved by the legislature, state cannot shirk its responsibility to make good the loss, if any caused in the event such ordinance or legislation is held to be unconstitutional and is quashed and set aside by the courts. in the present case, if the petition succeeds appropriate orders in this regard will be passed; however since the rule is made returnable on 20.08.2008, we are not inclined to stay the effect and operation of the impugned ordinance at this stage. 3] in w.p. 3390 of 2009 (nsai v. state of maharashtra and ors.) the petitioners challenged the validity of the maharashtra cotton seed (regulation of supply, distribution, sale and fixation of sale price) ordinance, 2009 (the ordinance) (published in the official gazette on 09.05.2009) and the notification .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
p.c. by this writ petition under article 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, petitioner seeks a declaration that all proceedings under urban land (ceiling and regulation) act, 1976 stand abated in view of section 3 and 4 of the urban land ceiling repeal act 1999. accordingly respondents be directed to make appropriate change in the revenue record and restore the name of the petitioner therein in respect of land kh.nos.211 and 211/1 mouza wadi patwari halka 47 tahsil nagpur gramin, district nagpur. 2. petitioner states that this land admeasures about 3.84 h.r. it was shown in the land records in the name of the petitioner. when the returns were filed in the year 1981 it appears that an enquiry was made and a portion admeasuring 22781 sq. mtrs. from these khasra numbers came to be notified and declared as surplus vacant land. that order was passed on 28th december 1981. accordingly, the petitioner presented a scheme under section 20(1) of the urban land ceiling act. it is stated that this was in relation to half portion of the land declared as surplus. this scheme was sanctioned by the competent authority, urban land ceiling nagpur. however, the scheme was not implemented as there was no approach road to the petitioner's land and no infrastructure facilities were available. reliance is placed on the exemption order and it is submitted that area admeasuring 0.36 h.r. from kh. no.211/1 and area admeasuring 0.54 h. r. from kh. no.211 are shown in the name of respondent no.1 .....
Tag this Judgment!