Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2002(1)ALLMR217; 2001(4)BomCR126
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. By this Public Interest Litigation, Marathwada Janta Vikas Parishad and a local agriculturist are challenging a major irrigation project undertaken by the State of Maharashtra and Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation known as 'Khadakpurna Project' on the upstream of Purna river, mainly on the ground that this project would adversely affect the beneficiaries of the earlier Purna project. In this writ petition the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Irrigation Department, Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, Central Water Commission through its Chairman ; Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation through its Executive Director and the Executive Engineer of the Vidarbha Irrigation Khadakpurna Project Division are arrayed as respondents.2. The erstwhile Government of Hyderabad had undertaken the major irrigation cum power project known as 'Purna Project' in the year 1955. This project was an Irrigation cum Hydro Power Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1964MP213; 1964MPLJ854
Sharma, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State Government against the judgment and decree dated the 28th of October, 1960 passed in favour of the respondent by, the Addl. District Judge Guna, in Civil Suit No. 4 of 1960 of his Court. 2. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the Divisional Forest Officer of Rajasthan State for preparing 'kattha' from the forest trees in Sironj subdivision and deposited a sum of Rs. 5130/- by way of cash security in the Rajasthan State Treasury. The Sironj sub-division was, on the passing of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 transferred to the State of Madhya Pradesh. The plaintiff, therefore, deposited the monies payable under the contract in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer Guna and carried on the work of preparing 'kattha' as originally agreed between himself and the State of Rajasthan. On the completion of the contract he demanded refund of the amount of Rs. 5130/- deposited as cash security. The State of Madhya Pradesh d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR401; 2007(3)BomCR555; 2008(1)MhLj581
Naresh H. Patil, J.1. These petitions arise out of identical and common issues. Therefore, we propose to finally dispose of these petitions by a common judgment and order.2. In Writ Petition No. 2818 of 2004 we grant Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the respective respondents waive service. By consent of the parties this writ petition is also taken up for final hearing.3. The petitioner in Writ Petition Nos. 2641 of 1992 and 2818 of 2004 is the same i.e. Madhav Shankhpale who is brother of Nanda Yadavrao Shankhpale, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3443 of 1990.4. The conspectus of the matter unfolded from the pleadings of the parties is described as below.5. Madhav Shankhpale, one of the petitioners, claims to be belonging to 'Mahadeo Koli', Scheduled Tribe. The tribe claim of the petitioner was initially verified and by an order dated 14-10-1982 passed by the Director of Social Welfare, Maharashtra State, the certificate issued in favour of petitioner Madhav by the Taluk...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1970Kant112; AIR1970Mys112
Narayana Pai, J.1. This is a writ petition for a direction in the nature of mandamus to be issued to the State Government for fixing the pay of the petitioner on promotion as Inspecting Officer in the Department of Indian Medicine with effect from 23-9-1958 in the pay scale of Rs. 350-600 OS equal to Rs. 250 to 550 IG. 2. The petitioner is an allottee from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad to the New State of Mysore. At the time of allotment upon the Reorganisation of the States Act, i.e., 1-11-1956, he was holding the position of Mustanad Attiba on a pay scale of Rs. 205 to 450 OS, equivalent to Rs. 176 to 375 IG. After reorganisation, he was promoted as Inspecting Officer on 23-9-1958. The claim of the petitioner is that because the said promotion was the first promotion after he got allotted to this State, he was entitled to the pay scale attached to the post of Hakeem Class II of his parent State of Hyderabad as that would have been the post to which he would have been promoted had ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. These 8 appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned District Judge, Raichur allowing a batch of appeals filed by the Conductors, working in the Mysore Government Road Transport Department in Raichur District, who had been dismissed from service. As the same questions arise in these appeals, they are dealt with in one judgment. The respondents were working as conductors in the Hyderabad Road Transport Department and after the new Mysore State was formed, they were allotted to Mysore and continued to work as conductors in Raichur Department of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department After Departmental Enquiry, they were dismissed by the Divisional Controller of the Mysore Government Road Transport, who will be hereinafter referred to as 'the Controller'. After the said order of dismissal was confirmed by the General Manager, they filed suits in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Raichur, for declaration that the order of dismissal passed by the Controller was illega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1972)ILLJ59Kant; (1970)2MysLJ496
Per A. Narayana Pai, J.1. The petitioner in W.P. 94 of 1966 was recruited as a conductor on 26-2-1962 by the Divisional Controller, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, Mysore division. In respect of some alleged misconduct or misdemeanour, a disciplinary enquiry was held against him and he was dismissed from service by an order dated 9-10-1964 made by the said Divisional Controller, Mysore division. An appeal against the same by him presented to the General Manager at Bangalore was dismissed. Thereupon he presented the above W.P. 94 of 1966 to this Court which was disposed of on 16-10-1968. The judgment of this Court is reported at (1968) 2 Mys. L.J. 631. This Court upheld the petitioner's contention that the power of dismissal could be competently exercised only by the Deputy General Manager of the Bangalore division, in view of the express provisions of standing order No. XIII of the standing orders applicable to the Mysore Government Road Transport Department (M.G.R.T.D.). Acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1963]3SCR809
Subba Rao, J. 1. These two petitions filed under Art. 32 of the Constitution by different parties are directed against the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Kasaragod, and the State of Kerala, for a declaration that s. 2A of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950, as amended by Kerala Act 11 of 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is constitutionally void and for quashing the orders of assessment made by the first respondent pursuant to the said provision. 2. As it is common case that the decision in the first petition would govern the second one, it would suffice if the facts in the first petition were given. 3. Kasaragod Taluk, wherein the agricultural lands of the petitioner's family are situate, formed part of the district of South Kanara in the Madras State. Under the States Reorganization Act, 1956 (Central Act 37 of 1956) the Kerala State comprising the following territories was formed : (a) the territories of the existing State of Travancore-Coching excluding the ter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1276; 1974LabIC980; (1975)3SCC58; [1974]3SCR907
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. These two appeals are by certificate from the common judgment dated 10 August, 1971 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh.2. The State and the Taxation Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh are the appellants its Civil Appeal No. 1324 of 1972. The ten appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2648 of 1972 are Taxation Inspectors of the former State of Punjab. They were allocated to Himachal Pradesh because of reorganisation of the State of Punjab. The first seven appellants were confirmed as Taxation InspectOrs. The other three appellants were Taxation Inspectors but were not confirmed in that post.3. The appellants in the former State of Punjab were Sub Inspectors of Taxation. On 1 April. 196o the appellants were upgraded from the post of Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors of Taxation. When the appellants were allocated to Himachal Pradesh on the appointed day on 1 November, 1966 they were Inspectors of Taxation. The respondents were Excise Sub-Inspectors in Himachal Pradesh on the appointed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1962KAR609; [1962]13STC940(Kar)
ORDERHegde, J. 1. These are connected petitions. They are filed by the same assessee. W.P. 555/62 relates to the sales tax levied for the assessment year 1956-57, W.P. 556/62 relates to the sales tax levied for the period commencing from 1st April, 1957, and ending with 30th September, 1957. W.P. 574/62 relates to the sales tax levied for the assessment year 1955-56. 2. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the assesses-petitioner has prayed that we may be pleased to quash the orders passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Dharwar. As against the orders passed by the said Commercial Tax Officer, he has not gone up in appeal to the authorities constituted under the Bombay Sales Tax Act. Till 1st October, 1957, the Bombay area of the Mysore State was governed, in the matter of sales tax, by the provisions of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. A uniform sales tax law in the new Mysore State was introduced for the first time on 1st October, 1957. The impugned assessments wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1969MP143; (1970)ILLJ136MP; 1968MPLJ833
Pandey, J.1. This is a petition under Articles 220 and 227 of the Constitution to call up and quash by certiorari-(i) an order dated 22 March 1961, whereby the petitioner's pay was fixed at Rs. 133/- on a new time scale of payintroduced retrospectively from 17 November 1954; (ii) another consequential order dated 2 December 1961 by which directions were given for recovery of Rs. 132.15 from the salary of the petitioner on account of over-payments made to him since 6 June 1959; and (iii) an order dated 1 December 1964 by which the petitioner was given an opportunity for election exercisable under Rules 4 and 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959. The petitioner further prayed for a writ of mandamus prohibiting the authorities from giving effect to the aforesaid orders. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition, shortly stated, are these. The petitioner was employed as a clerk in the Public Works Department of the old State of Ma...
Tag this Judgment!