Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1996Bom429; 1997(3)BomCR549; 1997(1)MhLj365
ORDERDeshmukh, J. 1. The counsel for petitioners seek leave to amend the writ petitions. The counsel for respondents have no objection. Leave granted. 2. These three writ petitions involve common question of law. The petitioners were elected as members of the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. The petitioner in Writ PetitionNo. 5825/1995 was elected as Chairman of Building and Finance Committee of the Zilla Parishad as far back as in the year 1992. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5826/1995 were elected as Chairman of Social Welfare Committee; and Agriculture & Animal Husbandary Committee respectively, white petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5864/1995 was elected as Vice-President of the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, and was, therefore, automatically Chairman of Education and Health Committees. 3. On 2-12-1995, a requisition for no confidence motion was submitted against all these petitioners in respect of the posts held by them. On 5-12-1995, the Collector, Aurangabad, issued notices for con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(4)MPHT69
ORDERD.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In the course of deciding this writ petition on merits which was filed to assail the 'No Confidence Motion' passed against the petitioner as elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Koora, Hon'ble Justice Dipak Misra, sitting singly found that in construing the provisions of Section 21 of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 and analogous provisions of the repealed Act as also sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 framed thereunder have been differently construed in several Single Bench decisions of this Court (INFRA) and in these decisions earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in Gayasuddin v. Gram Panchayat (1971 JLJ 286) was not noticed, The learned Judge also found that the decision of this Court in Akbar Khan v. S.D.O., Mandleshwar (1997) 2 Vidhi Bhasvar 284] was not noticed in Sharda Bai v. State of M.P. [(1997) 2 MPLJ 291]. The learned Single Judge, therefore has made this reference to the Full Bench for resolving the cleavage of opinions expressed by several...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR2000P& H260; (2000)126PLR579
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Whether a tenant of a building constructed on the site sold by the Chandigarh Administration under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (for short, the Act) read with the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960 (for short, the 1960 Rules) for running a tea stall can seek change of trade as of right and whether the order of resumption passed by the Assistant Estate Officer (exercising the powers of the Estate Officer), Union Territory, Chandigarh under Section 8A of the Act is ultra vires to the provisions of the Act and the 1960 Rules and is contrary to the principles of natural justice are the issues which arise for determination in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by M/s. International Publishers.The fact 2. There is no dispute between the parties that on the basis of highest bid of Rs. 25,000/- given by him in the auction held by the Chandigarh Administration in May 1969, booth site No. 6...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2004(1)MPHT77; 2003(3)MPLJ539
ORDERRajendra Menon, J.1. The petitioner by this petition has challenged the order (Annexure P-l), dated 6-11-2000 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kolaras, District Shivpuri, whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Panchayat Karmi on 5th October, 1995 on the basis of proper selection in accordance with the statutory rules and regulations. He was thereafter designated as Panchayat Secretary and at the relevant time had been working as Panchayat Secretary. It is the case of the petitioner that in accordance with the provisions of statute conditions of services of a Panchayat Karmi have been prescribed in the scheme and Clause 7 of the aforesaid scheme contemplates the provisions with regard to administrative control of the Gram Panchayat. Departmental action in accordance with the aforesaid provision can be taken against the Panchayat Karmi only by the Gram Panchayat. No other Officer ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1995)109PLR423
G.C. Garg, J.1. The primary controversy raised in this writ petition is about the penalty of forfeiture at 10% and the interest charged.2. Shop-cum-Office No. 66-67, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh was put to auction on lease-hold basis on July 17, 1977 under the provisions of Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') read with Chandigarh Lease-hold of sites and Buildings Rules, 1973 (For short 'the Rules'). Petitioners and respondents 4 to 8 turned out to be the highest bidders. Their offer of Rs. 6,90,000/- was accepted. The petitioners paid 25% of the premium at the spot. The balance was to be paid in three equated yearly instalments alongwith ground rent; The Petitioners failed to pay the first instalment and consequently proceedings for resumption of the site were taken. The site was initially resumed in the year 1979 on failure of petitioners to pay the instalments on the due dates, but the order was recalled. The petitioners even ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC119; (1985)87BOMLR49; 1984(2)SCALE793; (1985)1SCC234; [1985]2SCR129; 1985(17)LC432(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. These appeals by the State of Maharashtra arise out of a judgment dated February 8, 1980 of the High Court of Bombay in a group of writ petitions which were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. By those writ petitions, the petitioners, who are respondents herein, challenge the validity of the Maharashtra Vacant Lands (Prohibition of Unauthorised Occupation and Summary Eviction) Act, LXVI ofii975 and the legality of certain orders passed thereunder. We will refer to the aforesaid Act as 'the Act'. The Act replaced an ordinance, bearing a similar title, which was 'promulgated by the Governor of Maharashtra on November 11, 1975. The Act was amended twice, first by Act No. XXXVII of 1976 and then by Act No. VII of 1977. We will refer to these two Acts as 'the First Amendment Act' and 'the Second Amendment Act.2. Several writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court to challenge the validity of the Act and the orders passed under it; the facts being bro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Fulzele, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1, Shri Tajne, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 4, and Shri Padhye, Advocate for the respondent no.3. 2) Shri Mirza, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners are elected members of respondent no.2 Panchayat Samiti, Mahagaon and respondent no.3 is Chairman thereof. The grievance of the petitioners is against the communication dated 23/12/2010 issued by the respondent no.2 Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Mahagaon whereby Collector, Yavatmal was informed that resignations tendered by the petitioners as members of the Panchayat Samiti have been accepted by the Chairman of Panchayat Samiti and, therefore, their posts fell vacant, hence, appropriate steps to fill up vacancies according to law should be taken. It is submitted that acceptance of resignations...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1999)121PLR169
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The petitioner, who is tenant of M/s Om Prakash Aggarwal in respect of plot No. 662, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Chandigarh, has filed this petition for quashing the orders Annexures P-17, P-19 and P-21 passed respectively by the Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, the Chief Administrator and the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh on the ground of violation of natural jus- tice, discrimination and arbitrariness.2. The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this case are that proceedings under Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (hereinafter described as the 1952 Act) were initiated against M/s Om Parkash Aggarwal, owner and N.K. Sharda, who has been described as tenant of Plot No. 662, Phase-I, Industrial Area, on the ground of misuse of premises. Vide order Annexure P-17, dated 7.9.1989, the Assistant Estate Officer resumed the site and forfeited 10% of the total pric...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(1)KLJ300
Pius C. Kuriakose, J.1. Whether it is necessary to serve notices individually, regarding Grama Sabha meetings convened under Section 3(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act is the important question which arises for decision in this Writ Petition.2. Ext. P1 order of the Hon'ble Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions under which the Ombudsman directed the Panchayat to cancel the beneficiary list and the decisions taken in the Grama Sabha of Ward No. 15 of the petitioner-Panchayat is under challenge in this Writ Petition initiated by the Panchayat and the Convenor of the beneficiary committee, i.e., Convenor of the Grama Sabha of Ward No. 15. The complaint before the Ombudsman was Ext. P2. The allegation in Ext. P2 is that the beneficiary list prepared by the Grama Sabha in so far as it enlists a lady by name Alumkandi Chakky who is alleged to be not eligible for the benefit under the House Construction Scheme since her daughter Kalyani has received a total amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- by wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2008(2)KLJ913; 2008(3)KLT674
Antony Dominic, J.1. In this writ petition, though the petitioners sought several reliefs, the only one that was urged during the course of the arguments was for a declaration that in the absence of Gazette notification issued under Section 232 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the respondent Panchayat cannot insist that the petitioners should obtain licences under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Issue of Licence to Dangerous and Offensive Trades and Factories) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as D & O rules for short).2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are owners of poultry farms in respect of which, they have obtained Exts. P7 and P8 consent orders from the Kerala Pollution Control Board. They were informed that they should obtain licence under the D & O rules and thereupon they made applications, the receipt of which have been acknowledged by the Panchayat by Exts. P11 and P12. Thereafter, according to them, they realised that in the absence of Gazette Notification issue...
Tag this Judgment!