Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-27-2003
Reported in : (2003)3UPLBEC2067
M. Katju J.1. In this writ petition and in a large number of other similar writ petitions listed before us the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of U.P. Ordinance No. 8 of 2002, Annexure-2 to the writ petition entitled 'The U.P. Regulation of Coaching Ordinance, 2002'. This Ordinance was subsequently repealed by U.P. Regulation of Coaching Act, 2002. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of the said Act by an amendment application and also of the Rules made under the said Ordinance/Act, copy of which is Armcxure-3 to the writ petition and have prayed for a mandamus restraining the respondents from enforcing the said Ordinance/Act and Rules framed thereunder.2. It is alleged in Paragraphs 3 to 6-A of the writ petition that the petitioners are institutions/societies imparting coaching for various courses as mentioned in those paragraphs.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.4. The preamble to the Act states :'An Act to provide for restrict...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-14-2003
Reported in : (2003)3UPLBEC2213
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The present case depicts a sorry State of Government's mind and approach. It is revealed from the facts available that what a shabby manner the State is running its administration. The officers of the State instead of resolving the problems and performing their duties, have tried to make the situation more complex for extraneous considerations. They had been ex facie exhibiting malice and partnership'. It is a case of tug of war between two officials of a distinguished medical college of the State. The State administration apparently is divided into two lobbies, each taking positive sides with the errant teacher and staff member. Nobody appears to take any interest towards the ailing patients who rush to such colleges for the amelioration of their medical crisis.2. The writ petition has been filed by the officiating Principal of Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad challenging the suspension order dated 24.6.2003 on various grounds, including mala fides against R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-25-2003
Reported in : [2004]120CompCas18(All); (2004)2CompLJ446(All); [2004]49SCL77(All)
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for a writ of ceriorari for quashing the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 notified on 15-10-1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 1999 Regulations), vide Annexure 9 to the writ petition. The petitioners have also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents not to treat the petitioner No. 1 as a Collective Investment Management Company.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, Shri S.S. Ray and Shri S.M.A. Kazmi for the petitioner and Shri S.P. Gupta for the respondent No. 4.3. The petitioner No. 1 is a public Ltd. Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 carrying on inter alia the business of collective hi-tech and hi-brid agro-plantation sale and development of orchards on behalf of the owners, Cottages & Agricultural land. The petitioner No. 1 has also initiated its food processing unit at NOIDA (U.P.) in the name of 'Paramount foods' for which it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-10-2003
Reported in : [2006(107)FLR525]
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner was appointed as Driver in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Agra Region., Agra in February 1988. A charge sheet dated 4.10.1991 was issued to him by the Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C, Agra.(i) For causing a loss of Rs. 50,000/- to the corporation in accident due to his negligent driving, while he was driving Bus No. UAV 9803.AND(ii) Inspite of the fact that tyre pressure in Bus no. U.P. 80/9361 was very low; he drove the bus causing damage to tyres, which burst resulting in injury to the cleaner.3. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 15.7.1991 passed by Assistant Regional Manager, the order of suspension was revoked during the enquiry proceedings vide order dated 2./8./1991. After enquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 31.8.1992.4. Aggrieved by dismissal from services the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 4-K of the U.P. In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-11-2003
Reported in : (2004)1UPLBEC547
M. Katju, J.1. These writ petitions and the bunch of connected writ petitions have challenged the validity of the petitioners' allocation to the State of Uttaranchal consequent upon the creation of the State of Uttaranchal by the U.P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000. All these petitions are being disposed off by a common judgment.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners in all these connected petitions. We have also heard Sri B.N. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Central Government and the learned Standing Counsel for the State Government.3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 52499 of 2002 was selected as an Officer in the Provincial Police Service in 1987 Batch. After completing his training he joined the service on 3.3.1990 and was initially posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police at Rampur. Presently he is posted as Additional Superintendent of Police, District Gautam Budh Nagar.4. The U.P. Re-Organisation Act, 2000 was enacted by Parliament% which the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-07-2003
Reported in : (2003)2UPLBEC1588
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition and other similar writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. Writ Petition Nos. 43985 of 1997 and 43987 of 1997, relate to wholesellers of fruits and vegetables in Kanpur City. While Writ No. 27865 of 2000, Writ No. 27730 of 2000 and Writ No. 27711 of 2000 relate to foodgrains wholesellers. Writ Nos. 27731 of 2000 and Writ No. 27864 of 2000 relate to wholesellers of Khandsari.2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are wholesallers of various Items e.g., foodgrains fruits and vegetables, khandsari sugar etc., in Kanpur City. The common grievance of all the petitioners in these writ petitions is that they have been asked to shift their business premises from the present place in the heart of Kanpur City e.g., Kidwai Nagar, Cooperganj, Collectorganj, etc., to a new market yard called the Navin Mandi Sthal at Naubasta (Hamirpur Road) which is at the outskirts of Kanpur City. All the petitioners have been informed that if they do not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-20-2003
Reported in : 2004(1)AWC252; (2004)1UPLBEC252
Rakesh Tiwari, J.1. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned award dated 26.3.1999 passed by Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 8 of 1998, Annexure-9 to the writ petition treating respondent No. 1 with continuity in service and back wages from the date of his termination dated 1.6.1995.3. The brief facts of the case as they appear from record are that the petitioner has a photostat machine installed in a room of 12 x 8 feet. The shop was registered with the Director of Industries having its Registration No. SSI 53612. There are two electrostat machines in the shop. One of the machines is used for job work and another is used for display to secure orders for sale of the electrostat machine on commission. It is alleged that the workman required an experience certificate for applying for job elsewhere and the same was given to him on 8.12,1990 by the proprietor of the shop. Thereafter the wor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-11-2003
Reported in : (2003)2UPLBEC1817
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition and Writ Petition Nos. 29029, 29033 and 29152 of 2003, are being disposed off by a common judgment.2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel, and Shri Vinod Misra for NOIDA.3. On 30.3.2002, a notification Under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued proposing to acquire 779.55 Acres of land in Village Sadarpur, Tahsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar (NOIDA) for the benefit of New Okhla Industrial Development Area (hereinafter referred to as the NOIDA). True copy of the notification is Annexure 1. The petitioners have alleged that they have their abadi in that area. It is alleged in Para 6 that although one year has passed no notification has been issued Under Section 6 and this shows that there was no urgency. It is also submitted that the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad has issued a letter dated 29.12.81 to the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA requesting him not to acquire abadi plots a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-05-2003
Reported in : 2003(4)AWC2819
M. Katju, J.1. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 12.4.2002 in Writ Petition No. 53701 of 2000. In that decision the learned single Judge has followed his own judgment in Writ Petition No. 55771 of 2000, Sushil Kumar Srivastava v. U. P. Public Service Commission, decided on 12.4.2002.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The facts of this case are that the U. P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) issued an advertisement in the newspaper 'Rashtriya Sahara' dated 3.7.1999 inviting applications for the post of Regional Inspector (Technical) and Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical). Copy of the advertisement is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The writ petitioner applied against that advertisement. His application was rejected on the ground that he was overage, and hence he filed Writ Petition No. 30063 of 1999 in this Court in which an interim order dated 26.7.1999 was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-30-2003
Reported in : AIR2004All141; 2003(4)AWC2845; 2004(1)CTLJ582(All)
M. Katju, J.1. Contracts awarded by the Government or some statutory body or an instrumentality of the State are often worth crores of rupees. It is, therefore, absolutely essential that there should be transparency in grant of such contracts so as to avoid public criticism.2. In the present case, the challenge is to the grant of the contract in question by the respondent No. 1 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (in short B.S.N.L) to the respondent No. 6 and for quashing the impugned letter dated 13.1.2003, Annexure-12 to the writ petition.3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.4. The respondent No. 1 is a Government of India undertaking which is engaged in providing telecommunication facilities all over the country and it is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. The respondent No. 1 decided to start cellular telephonic service in west U. P. including district Badaun and decided to appoint distributors and dealers in this connection. For this purpose, the resp...
Tag this Judgment!