Court : Guwahati
Oral: 1. Heard Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel for Pollution Control Board, Assam. 2. By filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Syed Mahmud Ali, has challenged the office order dated 22.07.2013 imposing penalty of withholding 2 (two) Annual increments and debarring him from promotion for 3 (three) years under Rule 7 of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964. The petitioner is an Assistant Engineer in the Regional Office of the Pollution Control Board, Assam, at Nagan. On 05.12.2012 the Regional Executive Engineer being the in-charge of the aforesaid regional office received an application from one Dilmonjoy Bathori of M/s D. and J. Enterprise, Dima Hasao, for obtaining consent to establish an industry. According to the petitioner, upon receipt of the application dated 05.12.2012 the Regional Executive Engineer forwarded the application to him o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.G. Agarwal, J.1. This common Order disposes of Cri. Revision Nos. 545/1996, 205/ 1998 and Cri. Revn. No. 192/1998 as all these revisions are directed against the order passed in Case No. 206C/85 of the Court of C. J. M., Kamrup, and presently pending as Special Case No. 5C/93 of the Court of Special Judge, Kamrup and the order dated 20.4.1996 has been challenged in the two revision petitions. As a matter of fact, the revision petitioners before us have prayed for quashing of the trial in the above cases.2. The facts, Case No. RC/3/80/CIU(C) dated 10th November, 1980 was registered by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. In the FIR it was alleged that during the year 1978-79 the accused persons had entered into a conspiracy for cheating the State Government including the Steel Authority of India Ltd., and for obtaining certain pecuniary benefits to the tune of Rs. 1,53,000. In the year 1985 charge sheet was submitted against 26-accused persons under Section 120B/420/467/477A, IPC ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
A.H. Saikia, J.1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. H. Rahman, learned Senior C.G.S.C. appearing on behalf of the Union of India - respondents.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment and order dated 15.3.2000 passed by the learned Members, Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, (for short 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 66/98 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner raising a grievance against the order of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner, by way of penalty vide order dated 21.9.1995 rendered by the appellate authority on appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 31.1.1995 issued by the disciplinary authority removing him from service on the basis of initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules,) 1965, (for short 'the Rules').3. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
M. Sharma, J.1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Dr. A.K. Dey, who is the Minister-in-charge of Food and Civil Supplies, Govt. of Assam against the order dated 1 -2-93 in CR Case No. 59C/93 taking cognizance of the case and issuing warrant of arrest and also for quashing the entire proceeding in the abovementioned case pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Hojai.2. The abovementioned case was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Famrul Islam, opposite party No. 2 alleging killing of one Abdul Haque by the petitioner with a small gun, taking out from his pocket, in presence of his security guards and escort parties.3. As transpired from the complaint the occurrence took place on 9-12-92 but the complaint was lodged before the Judicial Magistrate on 1 -2-93. The reason for delay in filing the complaint was stated that on 12-12-92 the complainant filed FIR with the police, but the same was not accepted asking him to file it after the 'normalcy' ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Ram Labhaya, Ag. C.J. 1. This is a first appeal from the judgment and decree of the Second Additional District Judge, U.A.D., at Jorhat, by which plaintiffs' claim was decreed to the extent of Rs. 77,000/- with proportionate costs against the Union of India. The suit was dismissed against the State of Assam. The Union of India has appealed. The suit was instituted originally against the Governor-General in Council, the Secretary of State and the Province of Assam. During its pendency in the trial Court, the Union of India was substituted for the first two defendants and the Province of Assam was described as the State of Assam. 2. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 80,200/-. This sum was claimed for trespass on and damage done to Nawpookhri Fishery of which the plaintiffs were the lessees. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons of the late C.K. Bezbaruah, plaintiff 4 (minor) is his grandson, and plff. 5 is the widow of late S.N. Bezbarua. All the plffs. claim to be the joint owners o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
J.N. Sarma, J. 1. This writ application has been filed by an employee of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon challenging the order of dismissal dated 7.12.1998 passed by the Respondent No. 3, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Morigaon, Assam dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner was dismissed from service by holding an enquiry. Earlier this writ petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ petition (Civil) No. 299/99 and this writ petition came up for disposal before this court and on 8.2.1999 this court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that, there is alternative remedy available to the petitioner against the impugned order. Orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate are appealable before the District & Sessions Judge, Morigaon and the petitioner should avail the alternative remedy. Accordingly an appeal was filed before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Morigaon under Rule 15 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
P.P. Naolekar, C.J. 1. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the issues involved in this case are, that the petitioner was temporary appointed as officiating LDC in the scale of pay of Rs. 260-400 p.m. vide order dated 15.4.1978. The petitioner was absorbed in regular vacancy of LDC with effect from 5.5.1978 and thereafter, he was confirmed against a permanent post of LDC with effect from 1.5.1982 vide order dated 11.3.1983. The petitioner was put under suspension in contemplation of the departmental enquiry vide order dated 18.2.1986. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet on 14.5.1986 wherein the petitioner was charged for absenting himself from duty without taking prior permission and that he had failed to maintain the account in respect of sale proceed properly and had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,84,862 being supply of sale proceed Biate Group Centre, and lastly, while functioning as LDC he had spent Rs. 7000 being supply of sale proceed of Biate Group Centre ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
J.N. Sarma, J. 1. These cases raise the question of legality, validity and constitutionality of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, 1993 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), and other actions related to the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Guwahati constituted under the Act ('Tribunal' hereinafter). 2. In all 350 cases were filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Guwahati and out of such proceedings 211 writ petitions were filed before this court and stay was granted in those cases. There are some cases five in number arising out of cases filed by co-operative banks for recovery of their dues. The Debt Recovery Tribunal entertained them. The borrowers/ debtors have challenged this action on the ground that the Tribunal does not have the power to decide a suit filed by a co-operative bank, as the definition of 'bank' in the relevant Act does not cover a co-operative bank. These cases are separated from this bunch and they have been heard separately and separate judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. On receiving a report submitted, under Section 173(2) of the Code, by the police, on completion of investigation of a case, disclosing commission of offence(s) by one or more persons, if a Chief Judicial Magistrate makes over the case for disposal to another Magistrate, subordinate to him, does such making over of the case necessarily denote that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence(s) and, having so taken cognizance, made over the case for enquiry or trial to the magistrate to whom the case was sent for disposal If a Judicial Magistrate issues process without condoning the delay, when taking cognizance stands barred by a period of limitation as prescribed in Section 468 of the Code, shall the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code, necessarily and invariably, set aside and quash not only the order taking cognizance, but also the first information report or the complaint, as the case may be, and/or the police ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
I.A. Ansari, J.1. What is a 'complaint' under the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code')? How does a 'complaint' differ from a 'police report' as defined in the Code? Whether a report, submitted to a Judicial Magistrate by police on completion of investigation, which commenced on the basis of a direction issued by a Magistrate in exercise of the latter's powers under Section 202 of the Code, can also be regarded as a 'police report' as defined in the Code? What is 'cognizance'? When a 'complaint' is made to a Magistrate alleging commission of a cognizable offence, is the Magistrate bound to take 'cognizance' of the offence, which such a 'complaint' may disclose, or has the Magistrate any discretion to direct registration of the 'complaint' as a First Information Report (in short, 'the FIR') and investigation into the offence as may have been alleged, in the 'complaint,' to have been committed. When the Magistrate applies his mind to the contents of a 'complaint' in order to...
Tag this Judgment!