Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1992; 1972MhLJ168(SC); (1971)2SCC106; [1971]SuppSCR661
P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.1. The petitioner challenges the vires of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Maharashtra Act XXXI of 1965) (hereinafter referred to as the `impugned Act'). The parent Act is the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (Bombay Act XLVII of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as 'the parent Act'). In 1956 the State Legislature amended the parent Act by Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act 1956 (Bombay Act XIII of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act') which came into force on 1st August 1956.2. The State of Bombay undertook legislation in furtherance of its policy of social welfare and to give effect to agrarian reform. The parent Act was passed by the Bombay State Legislature in order to amend the law which governed the relationship between the landlord and tenants of agricultural lands, the object sought to be achieved being as indicated in its preamble that 'on account of the neglect of a landholde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC2001; (1972)3SCC172; 1971(III)LC734(SC)
I.D. Dua, J.1. The petitioners in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution are Achutyanand Singh and the kaithawalia Cane Growers' Co-operative Society registered under the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935. Petitioner No. 1 is the Secretary of Petitioner No. 2, the Co-operative Society. The facts necessary for the disposal of this Writ Petition lie in a very narrow compass and are not disputed We consider it unnecessary for our present purpose to refer to the earlier events including the correspondence between the Co-operative Department and the petitioners in the background of which the impugned order dated January 22, 1968 was made, because they have no material bearing on the question of the invalidity of the impugned orders.2. Ignoring therefore the earlier history of the controversy between the Cane Growers' Co-operative Societies and the Government Department of Cooperative Societies relating to the amalgamation of the Cane Growers Cooperative Societies i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1997; (1971)2SCC361; [1971]SuppSCR654
Grover, J.1. These appeals by special leave are from a judgment of a division bench of the Kerala High Court affirming the decision of a learned single judge who had dismissed the writ petitions of the appellants.2. The appellant in C.A. 1789/69 entered service as a teacher in a private aided school on March 14, 1946. Both the appellants in C.A. 1790/69 had joined service originally as teachers in aided schools but they entered government school service on August 17, 1958 and December 13, 1948 respectively. Similarly in C.A. 1791/69 the appellant joined government service as a teacher and attained the age of 55 on July 2, 1968.3. It appears that on November 22, 1965 all associations of government and private aided school teachers of which the appellants were members submitted a memorandum to the government making various demands. One of these (No. 11) was that the age of retirement of school teachers should be raised to 60 years. On July 14, 1966 the government issued an order by which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1420; 1971CriLJ1119; (1971)3SCC284; 1971(III)LC669(SC)
C.A. Vaidialingam, J. 1. This appeal, by special leave, by the accused, is directed against the judgment and order dated March 11, 1970 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing Criminal Appeal No 1138 of 1968 and confirming his conviction Under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) as also the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and the fine of Rs. 100/-imposed on him for the said offence. There is a direction that in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.2. The prosecution case as placed before the Special Judge, was as follows : The appellant at the material time was Loco Inspector, Locoshed, Jullundur city. One Sutlej Co operative Society had obtained contract for the clearance of cinder coal and ash from the fire pits of the railway yard of Jullundur city. Jagira, P.W. 2, was the representative of the Society supervising the work of clearance of co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1409; 1973(0)BLJR819; (1971)ILLJ557SC; 1971MPLJ56(SC); (1971)2SCC330; [1971]SuppSCR634
Vaidialingam, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ to the respondents in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing four orders dated September 2, 1953, March 5, 1960, August 5, 1966 and June 12, 1968. He further prays for issue of a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat him as having retired at the age of 58 and to pay him the pension that he is entitled to.2. Though four orders are sought to be quashed, as we will show in due course, the grievance of the petitioner regarding the orders dated September 2, 1953 and March 5, 1960 can no longer be considered by this Court in this writ petition. In consequence only the last two orders, mentioned above, survive for consideration.3. We will refer briefly to the circumstances leading up to the passing of the orders, referred to above, in order to appreciate the circumstances under which the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC1762; (1971)2SCC293; [1971]SuppSCR608
Shelat, J.1. These five petitions have been filed by candidates who failed to be selected for admission in Government Medical colleges in the State of Mysore and challenge the validity of the Selection Rules framed by the Government. Since they raise common questions, it is expedient to deal with them together and dispose them of by a common judgment. Writ petition No. 619 of 1970, we were told by counsel, is the most comprehensive of them all and therefore we shall deal with it first and as typical of the rest. As the rest of the petitions raise the same questions, it is not necessary to deal with each of them separately. Writ petitions Nos. 621 and 622, however, raise certain additional questions which will be dealt with to that extent separately.Writ Petition No. 619 of 19702. The petitioner in this Writ Petition passed the Secondary School Leaving examination in March 1968 obtaining first class marks. In March 1969, she passed the Pre-University Course Examination held by the Banga...
Tag this Judgment!