Court : Delhi
G. Rohini, C.J. 1. Though based on different set of facts, the controversy in all the petitions centers on common issues relating to the exercise of legislative power and executive control in the administration of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCTD). 2. The parties to the writ petitions and the orders impugned have been set out in the following Table so as to get a glimpse of the controversy involved in each writ petition. Sl.No.Writ PetitionPartiesImpugned order/action1.W.P.(C) No.5888/2015GNCTD vs. UOINotifications dated 21.05.2015 and 23.07.2014 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs empowering the Lt. Governor to exercise the powers in respect of matters connected with 'Services' and directing the ACB Police Station not to take cognizance of offences against officials of Central Government.2.W.P.(C) No.7887/2015Rajender Prashad vs. GNCTD and Ors.Notification dated 11.08.2015 issued by the Directorate of Vigilance, GNCTD under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. Sanjay Pratap Singh, a member of the Indian Administrative Service, Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram and Union Territories (AGMUT) Cadre, applicant herein, takes strong exception to the chargesheet dated 2.2.2006 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on variety of grounds, in this Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Brief facts, as may need necessary mention for the limited relief, however, as prayed at this stage, reveal that the applicant from time to time has been posted at Delhi.He had also been transferred to other places like Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Daman & Diu and Lakshadweep. The impugned chargesheet, however, pertains to a period when the applicant was posted at New Delhi. It is the case of applicant that he was posted as Project Director, Urban Basic Services under the Government of NCT of Delhi, and remained on the aforesaid post till 20.2.1998 whereafter he was relieved to join as Special Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2328/2007 V.VIKRAMAN ........ Petitioner Through Mr. Rajeev Sharma with Mr. Kanishka Gaur, Advocates versus UOI & ORS ........ RESPONDENTS Through Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr.Shambhu Chaturvedi & Mr. B.V.Niren, Advocates for respondents No.1 to 4 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHAWLA % INDIRA BANERJEE, J.(ORAL) JUDGMENT0202.2017 In this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order of punishment dated 25.10.2005 whereby the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with further directions that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and that the reduction would have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. WP(C) 2328/2007 page 1 of 9 On or about 5.11.1993, the petitioner joined the Special Service Bureau (SSB) under the Cabinet Secretariat ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 59(1995)DLT742
S.D. Pandit, J. (1) Petitioner G. S. Bajwa was commissioned in Indian Air Force on 27-6-1970. He got his substantial post of Flight lieutenant on 27-06-1976. His fourth posting was at Udhampur in the year 1976. At that time Shri Dilbagh Singh was the Air Marshal. It is the claim of the petitioner that some explosives were to be transferred to N.A.L. from Udhampur by 30 Civil Road Transports. But the said' work was not given at one and the same time and it was being undertaken as a piecemeal transport job in case the said work were to be given as a whole for 30 Civil Transports then it would be beyond the jurisdiction of Shri Dilbagh Singh. It is his further claim that in the said Transport Contract some malpractice was being played and Rs. 700 to Rs. 800 were being paid in excess for each trip. thereforee, he made a complaint regarding the same and because of his complaint there was a saving of about Rs. 80.000 but by that act of his. Shri Dilbagh Singh was hurt and, thereforee, he ins...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Govt. of NCT of Delh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. In exercise of the power conferred by the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 the Central Government constituted Central Police Reserve Force (hereinafter referred to as the „CRPF). By virtue of the provisions of Section 18 of the Central Police Reserve Force Act 1949, the Central Government made „Central Reserve Police Force Rules 1955, (hereinafter referred to as the „CRPF Rules). 2. In the year 1965 the Central Government constituted Border Security Force (hereinafter referred to as „BSF) to guard the borders of the country during peace time. At the time of its constitution BSF was governed by CRPF Rules, and for purpose of which, Chapter XV titled „Special Provisions relating to Border Security Force was inserted in the CRPF Rules. On 02.09.1968 the Parliament enacted the Border Security Force Act 1968, to provide for the constitution and regulation of an Armed Force of the Union for ensuring the safety of the borders of India and the matters con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
ORDER VIPIN SANGHI, J. C.M. Nos. 5957/2012 and 6842/2012 W.P.(C.) Nos. 2775/2012 and 3197/2012 Page 2 of 54 1. The petitioners have preferred the aforesaid writ petitions to seek a writ of mandamus quashing and setting aside the order No. AV.1404/48/97-80.I dated 07.05.2012 issued by respondent No. 1, i.e. the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), whereby the DGCA has suspended, with immediate effect, the Non-Scheduled Operator’s Permit (NSOP) No. 08/1998 issued to the petitioner, by invoking sub-Rule (6) of Rule 134A of the Aircrafts Rules, 1937 (the Rules). The impugned order is premised upon the withdrawal of security clearance of the petitioner company Global Vectra and it’s Director–Sh. Ravi Rishi, by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India. The petitioner also assails the action of respondent No. 2, i.e. the MHA in withdrawing the security clearance of the petitioner company. 2. The case of the petitioners in W.P.(C.) No. 2775/2012 is tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~26 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 12/2017 and IA Nos. 1004/2017, 4716/2017 & 4749/2017 ANURADHA SA INVESTMENTS LLC & ANR. ........ Petitioners Through: Mr Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr Samir Malik, Ms Shivangi Vaid Seth, Advocates alongwith Ms Divya Sharma, AR of the petitioners. and Mr Sourabh versus PARSVNATH DEVELOPERS LIMITED & ORS......... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr P. V. Kapur, Senior Advocate with Mr Vijay Nair, Mr Manoranjan Sharma, Mr Vimal Nagrath, Mr Sidharth Kapur, Ms Pratibha Sridhar, Ms Kaveri Gupta and Ms Divya Kapur, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER2004.2017 % VIBHU BAKHRU, J1 The above captioned petition has been filed for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement dated 03.06.2016 (hereafter the Settlement Agreement). It is the petitioners case that the Settlement Agreement has been arrived at pursuant to conciliation proceedings under Sections under Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (here...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2010CriLJ94; 160(2009)DLT277
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.1. This writ petition has been preferred by Naz Foundation, a Non Governmental Organisation (NGO) as a Public Interest Litigation to challenge the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), which criminally penalizes what is described as 'unnatural offences', to the extent the said provision criminalises consensual sexual acts between adults in private. The challenge is founded on the plea that Section 377 IPC, on account of it covering sexual acts between consenting adults in private infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India. Limiting their plea, the petitioners submit that Section 377 IPC should apply only to non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non- vaginal sex involving minors. The Union of India is impleaded as respondent No. 5 through Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Respondent No. 4 is the National Aids Control Organi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1993Delhi255
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. (1) The petitioner was commissioned as an Officer of the Indian Army on 3rd June 1956 and has a high career profile. In due course the petitioner rose to the rank of Lt. General. He was also awarded the Mahavir Chakra, the second highest gallantry award during 1971 War. Petitioner was approved for promotion to the acting rank of a Lt. General on 18th October 1989 and was posted as Director General Military Training (DGMT). By letter dated 5th June 1990 the petitioner was informed by Army Headquarters that bids promotion to the substantive rank of Lt. General with effect from 30th November, 1989 has been approved and notified in Gazette of India dated 2nd June, 1990. (2) In the writ petition the petitioner says that he has learnt from a report published in one of the newspapers that the Government is proposing to post him as Director General, Assam Rifles (for short 'D.G.A.R'.) and post Lt. General R. V. Kulkarni as Adjutant General in Army Headquarters. The post of A...
Tag this Judgment!