Court : Kerala
K.T. Sankaran, J. 1. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.14058 of 2009 are working as Overseer Grade I in the Engineering Wing of Local Self Government Department (hereinafter referred to as LSGD), while the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.4414 of 2008 are working as Assistant Engineers in the LSGD. 2. After the amendment of the Constitution of India by the 73rd amendment, the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 was enacted. Before the 1994 Panchayat Raj Act, the Engineering staff of the Panchayats were governed by the Kerala Panchayat Common Service Rules, 1977. They had limited chances of promotion. Stagnation occurred in the entry cadre post for several years. In the year 1998, the Pay Revision Committee took note of the lack of promotion avenues to the Engineering staff of the Panchayat Department and made some suggestions. After the Constitution 73rd Amendment, the functional responsibility of the Engineering staff of Panchayats and Municipalities in the State were substantially enhanced. Under th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
COMMON ORDER1. Sri Sthalasayna Perumal Temple, at Mahabalipuram, is an age old Hindu Temple. It is known for its rich heritage. It stands on the shore. It is a small temple with two major shrines for Lord Sthalasayana Perumal and Nilamangai Thayaar. It is believed that this is the birth place of the 2nd Azhwar - Boothathazhwar. Historians say that the architecture depicts the Pallava style and thus, it was built by Pallava Kings. It is one of the 108 Divayadesams. The said temple is under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, as per the provisions of The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959.The respondents 1 to 3, in exercise of power under Section 4(1) of The Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as the Central Act] have issued a notification expressing the intention of the Central Government to declare the said Temple as an ancient monument, which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.1. Leave granted.2. With the intention of setting up an integrated steel plant in the State of Orissa, Bhushan Limited, entered into discussions with the State Government in 2001 in that regard. Pursuant to such discussions, Bhushan Limited applied to the Industrial Development Corporation of India (IDCO) for acquisition of land measuring 1250 acres, for setting up the proposed plant in the identified villages of Thelkoloi, Dhubenchhabrar and Khariapalli (Lapanga) in the District of Sambalpur. On 13th November, 2001, Bhushan Limited applied to the Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (IPICOL) for appraisal and recommendation for acquisition of land for the aforesaid purpose to IDCO. Bhushan Limited also addressed two letters to the Collector, Sundergarh and Collector, Keonjhar on 28th November, 2001, applying for grant of lease for mining of iron ore for use in the proposed plant. The applications were received in the Collector's office ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Dipankar Datta, J. 1. These two revisional applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been heard together, since common questions of law and fact are involved. This common judgment shall govern both the revisional applications. 2. The two petitioners were proceeded against separately under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereafter the Act) for unauthorized occupation of public premises. The Estate Officer arrived at the conclusion that they were in unauthorized occupation of public premises and, accordingly, passed separate orders dated November 22, 2010 directing their eviction from the respective public premises which they were occupying. The orders of eviction were challenged by the petitioners by preferring separate appeals under Section 9 of the Act. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair (being the appellate authority) by separate but identical judgment and order dated October 31, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A): 1. Dr. Ashok Kumar Sharma and another, applicants herein, have assailed the Government of Uttar Pradesh recommendation dated 27.03.2010 (Annexure-A1 Colly), 22.05.2010, 08.09.2010 and Central Government order thereon dated 10.09.2010 (page 46) whereby the Non State Civil Services (NSCS) officers have been denied their rightful induction in the IAS due to cadre review and restructuring. It is the case of the applicants that there were certain directions contained in the judgment of the Lucknow Bench dated 06.09.2010, on the basis of which the Central Government granting an erroneous approval on 10.09.2010 diverted 11 vacancies earmarked for the Non State Civil Services (NSCS) Officers to the State Civil Services (SCS) officers. The applicants have, therefore, approached this Tribunal with following relief(s):- “a. Quash and set aside the letter dated 27.03.2010 issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of UP to the DOPT, Government of Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
DR. K.B.S. RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Capsulated facts of the case: The applicant was initially appointed as a Librarian in the Education Department of the Lakshadweep Administration in 1988. The Directorate of Social Welfare and Culture issued a circular to fill up the post of Classifier and Cataloguer on deputation from amongst Librarians having 5 years of service in the Government High School and the applicant was an aspirant for the post of Cataloguer and was so taken on deputation first and later on, he was absorbed on permanent basis in December, 1995. Sometimes in 1998, the post of Assistant Librarian and Classifier in the Central Library, Kavaratti were re-designated as Library and Information Assistant with the pay scale of Rs 1400 - 2300. The post of Cataloguer, which had earlier identical pay scale as of Classifier, however, was neither re-designated nor afforded higher pay scale. As such, the applicant preferred a representation and the Lakshadweep Central Library took up th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
The petitioner is a life convict. He was the sole accused in S.C.No.309 of 1983 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli. By judgment dated 17.09.1984, according to him, he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. An appeal preferred against the same in Crl.A.No.705 of 1984 was also dismissed by this Court by order dated 17.04.1989, and thus, the sentence of imprisonment for life, has been confirmed. 2.According to the petitioner, he has completed 14 years of actual imprisonment in connection with the said case. According to him, as per Rule 341(2) of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, his case should have been placed before the Advisory Board under the Rule, for the purpose of considering as to whether he would be entitled for remission, but the case was not placed before the Advisory Board by the third respondent. As a result, according to him, he has not been given remission, though similarly placed persons have been gran...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
The matter arises under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987. The petitioner in both writ petitions is one and the same company, I.e., Vijayalakshmi Cahew Company, having their headquarters at Kollam, Kerala State. The first writ petition was represented by its Branch Manager at Gandarvakottai, Pudukkottai District. The second writ petition was represented by its Proprietor K.Raveendranathan Nair. The proprietor of the said company is also the petitioner in all the five criminal original petitions. 2.The Branch Manager at Gandarvakottai filed the first writ petition before the Principal Bench on 15.7.2005 seeking for a direction to forbear the respondents, i.e., the Commissioner for Agricultural Marketing and Agricultural Business, Chennai, the Secretary, Pudukkottai Market Committee and the Supervisor, Regulated market, Gandarvakottai from demanding or collecting market fee from the petitioner in respect of cashew nut kernel brought into the notified ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Surya Kant, J. This order of ours shall dispose of CWP Nos. 17771 of 2003; 14179 of 2010; 18160 of 2011 as the issues involved therein are either interlinked or inter-dependent. Before extracting the facts in extenso from CWP No. 17771 of 2003, it being the oldest, we deem it appropriate to tersely refer to some of the orders passed by different Division Benches, resulting into placement of these cases before a larger Bench even in the absence of a formal reference order. CWP No. 17771 of 2003 2. Sehajdhari Sikh Federation - a registered Political Party has preferred this writ petition statedly in public interest, seeking quashing of the Notification dated 8th October, 2003 issued by the Central Government purportedly in exercise of its powers under Section 72 of the Punjab Re- organization Act, 1966 (in short, `the 1966 Act') whereby Sections 49 and 92 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (in short, `the 1925 Act') have been `amended' to the extent of denying the Sehajdhari Sikhs their righ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 20.12.2011 + CM (M) No. 1588/2010 and CM No. 22286/2010 (stay) NORTH DELHI POWER LTD ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Divyam agarwal, Mr. Manish Kr. Jha and Mr. Mohit Bakshi, Advocates. versus SWARNA GUPTA ..... Respondent Through Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anshu Mahajan, Mr. Karan Arora and Ms. Seema, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral).1. The order impugned before this court is the order dated 08.09.2010 which is an order passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) reversing the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 22.09.2009 whereby the eviction petition filed by the landlord i.e. Swarna Gupta against the tenant namely Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) on the ground of sub-letting as contained in Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been dismissed. The impugned judgment reversing this finding...
Tag this Judgment!