Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1987(1)BomCR130
G.F. Couto, J.1. The constitutional validity of section 4 of the Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act, 1962, as well as of sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, and of the Notification No. 110123/85-UTL issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, on 16th January, 1985 is being assailed in these two writ petitions filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. The grounds of challenge in both the writ petitions are the same, as same are the reliefs sought. Hence this common judgment.2. Section 3 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', provides that there shall be a Legislative Assembly for each Union territory and that the total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of a Union territory to be filled by persons chosen by direct election shall be forty in the case of the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh and thirty in the case of any other Union territory. Its sub-s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)7SCC259; 2008AIRSCW4814; 2008(7)SCC259
S.B. Sinha, J.Leave granted.1. Whether rule of perpetuity would be applicable in respect of a member of a Sikh Judicial Commission (for short 'Commission') constituted under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act') is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.09.2002 passed by a Five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 371 of 1999.2. The Act was applicable to the entire territories of the undivided State of Punjab including PEPSU. By reason of the provisions of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, the State of Himachal Pradesh was constituted, having been carved out from the State of Punjab.3. Another Parliamentary Act, being Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (for short 'the 1966 Act') was enacted in terms whereof the State of Punjab was divided into the State of Punjab, the State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.4. The Central Government admittedly is the appropriate authority for passing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1966SC625; (1966)IILLJ132SC; 1966MhLJ366; [1966]2SCR134
Hidayatullah, J.1. This judgment will also dispose of Civil Appeal No. 260 of 1964. These appeals arise from a judgment dated October 27, 1961 of the High Court of Bombay in a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, filed by three First Grade clerks attached to the offices of the Collectors of Wardha, Bhandara and Chanda districts. They are the three respondents in this appeal. The petition in the High Court was originally filled by two of these respondents as Secretary and Member of the Ministerial Services Associations, Wardha and Bhandara respectively but they were treated as petitions on their personal behalf. The petitioners asked for a writ of mandamus against the Government of Bombay for the equation of their posts with Aval Karkuns in the State of Bombay (later the State of Maharashtra) under Sections 115 and 116 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956 (Act 37 of 1956) read with the Allocated Government Servants (Absorption, Seniority, Pay & Allowances) Rules 1957. As a fir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
V.N. Sinha, J 1. These winding up petitions have been taken up for consideration in the light of the request of the Hon'ble Supreme Court contained in order dated 18 May 2007, passed in IA Nos. 8 and 11 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 488 of 2002.2. Bihar State Small Industries Corporation Ltd./Bihar, Patna, Bihar State Pharmaceutical and Chemical Development Corporation Ltd., Bihar, Patna and Bihar State Agro-Industries Development Corporation, Patna, were incorporated as a State Government company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act with their registered offices situate at Patna in the State of Bihar. As the financial condition of the aforesaid three Government companies as also other Government companies became precarious and they were unable to discharge their routine liability, such as payment of salary and wages to their employees, a Full Bench of this court in the case of Manikant Pathak v. State of Bihar (1997)(1) PLJR 664, directed the State Government compani...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1989(2)BomCR250; (1989)91BOMLR207; [1991]71CompCas486(Bom)
Dr. Couto J.1. The short question that this writ petition gives rise to is whether it was open to the Government to appoint a chief executive to the petitioner-bank after it became a multi- State co-operative society. 2. The first petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative societies Act, 1960, as applied to the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. Its authorised share capital is Rs. 1,25,00,000, the total subscribed capital being Rs. 1,26,79,400, out of which Rs. 50,39,000, had been subscribed by the Government of Goa. The petitioner-bank's borrowings and debentures are guaranteed by the Government of Goa and besides, the bank has purchased Government bonds worth Rs. 60,00,000. Its area of operation and the objects extended to the whole territory of the then existing Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu and it has branches in Goa, Daman and Diu. The Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act'), came into force on Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC718; JT1997(1)SC734; (1997)10SCC700; [1997]1SCR262
ORDERS.C. Agrawal , J.1. This appeal, by special leave, arises out of a suit filed by the respondent Amar Nath Bansal for a declaration that his retirement on attaining the age of 58 years was illegal and that he is entitled to continue in service till he attains the age of 62 years.2. The respondent was appointed as a civilian clerk in the Army in the erstwhile State of Jind on July 12, 1943. In the Jind State the age of superannuation, as prescribed by Regulation 27 of the Jind State Civil Service Regulations, 1945, was 62 years. On May 5, 1948, the Ruler of Jind State and the Rulers of the States of Patiala, Kapurthala, Nabha, Faridkot, Malerkotla, Nalagarh and Kalsia entered into a Covenant whereby they agreed to unite and integrate their territories in one State to be known as Patiala and East Punjab States Union (for short 'PEPSU'). As a result of the integration of the services of the Union States, the respondent was posted as Auditor in the Treasury in PEPSU. On the coming into...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1969)IILLJ1Kant; (1968)2MysLJ299
ORDERGovinda Bhat, J1. In this writ petition preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the transfer to, and absorption in, of respondents 2 to 12 in the cadre of assistants in the Mysore Secretariat Service, and giving them seniority and promotion over the petitioner. The facts so far as they are material may be briefly stated. 2. The petitioner who had entered service as an assistant in the Bombay Secretariat Service on 17 October, 1955, was allotted to the new State of Mysore consequent on the Reorganization of States and since then, he has been serving in the Mysore Government Secretariat. Respondents 2 to 10 with the exception of respondents 8 and 9 were serving in the Translation Department of the erstwhile State of Mysore, and respondents 8 and 9 are allottees from the erstwhile States of Hyderabad and Madras respectively, to the new State of Mysore under S. 115 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956, hereinafter called the Act. Responde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2002(50)BLJR336
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are of vital public importance, in as much as these relate to the status of every person, who immediately before reorganisation was serving in connection of the existing State, of Bihar and the powers of the successor-State of Bihar and Jharkhand, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.2. The petitioner, Arvind Vijay Bilung of CWJC No. 2202/2001, a member of State. Education Service, was posted at Jehanabad (now in the present State of Bihar) between 1996-98. Since October 16th, 1998, he was posted as District Superintendent of Education, Chatra (now in the State of Jharkhand).3. The other petitioner, V.N. Mishra of WP (S) No. 2692/2001, a member of State Forest Service, was posted as Divisional Forest Officer, State Trading Division, Gumla (now in the State of Jharkhand). Subsequently, he was posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Minor Forest Material Project D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1967)ILLJ15Kant; (1965)2MysLJ40
ORDERK.S. Hegde, J.1. These are connected writ petitions. In these writ petitions, most of the contentions raised are common and hence it would be convenient to deal with them together. Excepting Writ Petitions No. 2574 of 1963 and No. 53 of 1964, the rest of the writ petitions were filed by officers, who before the reorganization of State were borne on the cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forests in the erstwhile State of Mysore. They stood allotted to the new State of Mysore under S. 115 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956, to be hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2574 of 1963 was recruited as an Assistant Conservator of Forests in 1953 in the State of Madras. At the time of the reorganization of the States, he was serving as an assistant to the District Forest Officer at South Kanara. After the reorganization, he was allotted to the new State of Mysore. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 53 of 1964 was serving as an Assistant Conservator of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1975P& H160
Bal Raj Tuli, J. 1. These two writ petitions (Civil Writs Nos. 266 and 1924 of 1974) will be disposed of by this judgment as they raise a common question of law.2. The facts of C. W. 266 of 1974, briefly stated, are that the petitioner, Dr. Harkishan Singh, his wife and two sons, purchased shop-cum-flat No. 7, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh, from Lt. Col. Surjit Singh Padda by means of a registered sale deed dated October 13, 1971. At that time, Tara Chand Jain, respondent 3, was the tenant of those premises and he attorned as a tenant to the petitioner. The rent of the premises was Rs. 300/- per mensem which he paid from November, 1971 to February, 1972, to the petitioner. The petitioner, his two sons and his wife, terminated the tenancy by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to respondent 3 and, on his failure to vacate the premises, they filed a suit for his ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages on May 12, 1972. The plea raised by respondent 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!