Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1965Guj87; (1964)10GLR769
..... enacts that the law governing the matters will be the same as the law in force immediately before the 1st of november 1956 in the high court for the corresponding state, i.e. the old state of bombay. section 54 provides for the practice and procedure of the high court for the new state. section 55 provides for the custody off the seal and section 56 provides for forms of writs and other processes of the high court. section 57 deals with the powers of the chief justice, the single judges and division courts of the high court for the new state. that section is important also and we shall have to read it in full when we deal with the rival ..... court of saurashtra. whilst the first appeals were pending in the high court of saurashtra, and the original suits in the other cases were pending in their respective courts, the state reorganisation act, 1956 (hereafter called 'the reorgasnization act') was passed. under that act, the states of saurashtra and kutch and parts of some other states were merged and the new state of bombay was created, the high court o saurashtra was abolished and the high court of bombay was established as the high court from the new state of bombay. under section 59, sub-section (3), the first apppeals from which letters patent appeals nos. 2 of 1960 and 8 of 1960 arise .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1962Kant112; AIR1962Mys112
Somnath Iyer, J.1. The eleven petitioners before us were Senior Assistants, in the Secretariat of the State of Bombay. Under the provisional of the States Reorganization Act, they were allotted to serve in the new State of Mysore. The provisional allotment was made at the time of the Leo reorganization, and we have been told that the final allotment under sub-section (3)of section 115 of the States Reorganization Act was made in the year 1960.(2) On November 18, 1957, the Government of the new State of Mysore published what is described as a provisional Inter-State Seniority List of the First Division Clerks in the Mysore Government Secretariat. Persons who were dissatisfied with their positions in the said list. 'on grounds connected with the establishment of equivalence reorganization' were directed that submit their objections to the Under - Secretary to the Government, General Administration Department, with in thirty days from the date of the publication of the List.(3) The petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1957Bom165; (1957)59BOMLR355; ILR1958Bom32
Shah, J.1. In this application the petitioner Padmakar Balkrishna Samant has sought to challenge the validity of certain provisions of the States Re-organisation Act (37 of 1956). The petitioner claims to be a permanent resident of Goregaon, without the limits of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, in the Taluka of Borivali, District Thana. The petitioner says that Goregaon was declared to be 'a village' within the meaning of Section 4 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act. 1923, and that the said village had a panchayat consisting of 15 elected members, that about 25000 persons are residing in the village and that the panchayat 1ms a revenue of about two lacs of rupees per annum and that the Goregaon Village Panchayat is the 'biggest and the most progressive' village panchayati within the State of Bombay. The petitioner further stated that under authority conferred upon the State of Bombay by an enactment entitled the Bombay Municipal (Further Extension of Limits and Schedule BBA ) (Amen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1959)ILLJ572Bom
Chagla, C.J.1. A very interesting question arises with regard to the proper construction of S. 59 of the States Reorganization Act, and the question arises under the following circumstances. A petition was filed by one Surjuprasad Gumashta against the State of Madhya Pradesh alleging that he had been wrongfully dismissed, and this petition was presented before the Nagpur High Court and the petition was admitted by that High Court. Then came the States Reorganization Act and this petition was transferred to the Bombay High Court under Sub-section (2) of S. 59. The petition now comes before the Bombay High Court for final disposal and the question that arises is whether this High Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ against the State of Madhya Pradesh. We are only dealing with this petition to the extent that the complaint made is that the dismissal is by the State of Madhya Pradesh and that the State of Madhya Pradesh is liable to reinstate the petitioner in its service. 2. Now, the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(4)BomCR784; 2007(5)MhLj454
Chavan R.C., J.1. Rule. By consent made returnable forthwith.2. By this petition the petitioner, a student of engineering with respondent No. 4 college, takes exception to the communication dated 8.12.2005 by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, informing the petitioner that he was not entitled to have his claim as belonging to caste Kalar (OBC) examined by the committee since he was a migrant. The petitioner, therefore, seeks direction to the committee to decide his caste claim within stipulated time since absence of decision of his caste claim has hampered his educational career. He also sought direction to the university and college to declare his result of first year examination, to which he was provisionally admitted, subject to verification of his caste claim, and to allow him to continue his education as a candidate belonging to O.B.C., or in the alternative as a candidate of open category.3. Respondent No. 3 university filed submission stating that failure of the petitioner to produce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1963Mys66
A. Narayana Pai, J.1. In these several Writ Petitions by the employees of the Mysore Government Road Transport Department impugning the validity of certain orders passed against them by an officer of the Department in disciplinary proceedings instituted against them, certain common points of law arise. Therefore, they have been heard together. The learned counsel on both sides, for the sake of convenient disposal of these cases, addressed us in the first instance on these general points of law and thereafter proceeded to deal with the facts and circumstances peculiar to individual cases. We propose to follow the same method in disposing of these cases.2. The common points fall under two categories : The first of them deals with the competency of the officer who made the orders and the second with the correctness or validity of the orders in the light of the rules and standing orders governing the procedure in respect of disciplinary action.3. The particular officer, whose competency is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(2)ALLMR60; 2006(2)MhLj825
P.S. Brahme, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.Z. Jibhkate, Advocate for the petitioner. Rule returnable forthwith, Mrs. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Mr. S.C. Mehadia, Advocate waives notice on behalf of respondent No. 2.2. By consent, heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.3. By this petition, the petitioner is questioning the orders dated 16-10-2004 and 8-12-2004 respectively passed by respondent No. 1 - Caste Scrutiny Committee and respondent No. 2 - Maharashtra State Regional Transport Corporation.4. The petitioner belongs to 'Gond' community which is specified as Scheduled Tribe in relation to the Maharashtra State. He was issued Caste Certificate to that effect dated 6-7-1995 by the Competent Authority at Ramtek on the basis of the School Leaving Certificate, Patwari's report and affidavit. The father of the petitioner, who was permanent resident of Chabhata, Tq. Dongargarh, Distt., Rajnandgaon (Madhya Pradesh), shifted and settled at Tot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1998KAR1532; 1998(2)KarLJ621
ORDER1. A question of considerable public importance arises for consideration in this writ petition. The question precisely is whether the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 is in its application to what are known as Bombay Karnataka Areas of the present day State of Karnataka unconstitutional being discriminatory hence offensive to Article 14. In order to correctly appreciate the rival contentions urged at the Bar, it is necessary to briefly trace the historical background, in which the impugned enactment continues in its extra territorial application beyond the limits of the erstwhile State of Bombay now the State of Maharashtra.2. Consequent upon the enactment of the States Reorganisation Act, State of Mysore-now the State of Karnataka was carved out as an independent administrative unit comprising the following:(1) Areas included in the erstwhile Princely State of Mysore;(2) Areas from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad presently known as the Hyderabad Karnataka areas;(3) Areas from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1972SC1640; (1971)3SCC697; [1972]1SCR896; 1972(4)LC170(SC)
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is by Special leave against the summary rejection of the Letters Patent appeal challenging the Judgment of a Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appellant was an Assistant Grade Clerk in the Police Department in the State of Punjab prior to its Reorganisation. Respondent 4 was also occupying a similar post in the Patiala & East Punjab States Union (hereinafter called 'Pepsu') as Head Assistant which was equivalent to the post of an Assistant. At the time of the States reorganisation a provisional list of the persons in this service was prepared and published in 1957 in which the 4th Respondent was given 36th place while 5 others namely Prakash Chand, Jaswant Singh, Gurcharan Dass Vaid (the Appellant), Santokh Singh and Hem Raj were given 17th 18 th, 19th, 20th and 21st place respectively. Respondent 4 appealed to the Govt. of India which under the States reorganisation Act 1956 was the competent authority to determine this question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1960Kant275; AIR1960Mys275
Narayana Pai, J.(1) The petitioner, who is an assessee under the Madras General Sales Tax Act, impugns in this writ petition the legality of tax imposed in respect of transactions covered by sales effected by him outside the District of South Kanara but within the areas of the old Mysore State, both of which were since integrated into the new Mysore State. This argument is pressed only in respect of the period 1-4-1957 to 30-9-1957 till which date different statutes levying sales tax were in force in different areas of the new Mysore State. Prior to the reorganisation of the States, territories of the old Mysore States as it then was and such turnover of the petitioner had been exempted or excluded from taxation under the Madras Act as constituting turnover in respect of transactions in the course of inter-State trade.It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the position was not different even after the reorganisation of States until on 1-10-1957 the Mysore Sales Tax Act was passe...
Tag this Judgment!