Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(3)SC658; 1987(2)SCALE656; (1987)4SCC459; [1988]1SCR351; 1988(1)LC146(SC)
ORDER1. By the main judgment of this Court delivered on 22nd June, 1984 in Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1984)IILLJ481SC this Court decided that admission for a fixed percentage of seats in different courses of study in the Medical Faculties should be on an All India basis. Dealing with Post Graduate Courses such as MDS and MS and the like and taking into consideration broader aspects of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity in education which as its own value and relevance, this Court took the view that though residential requirement within the State should not be a ground for reservation in admissions to Post Graduate Courses, a certain percentage of seats may be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS course from a Medical College may be given preference for admission to Post Graduate Course in the same Medical College or University, but such reservation on the basis of institutional ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2323; JT1987(3)SC663; 1987(2)KLT977(SC); 1987(2)SCALE646; 1987Supp(1)SCC321; [1988]1SCR340; 1988(1)LC61(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order made by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The High Court relied upon the ratio of its Full Bench decision in M.M. Yaragatti v. Vasant : AIR1987Kant186 and dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable.2. The short question for consideration in this appeal is as to whether a revision application is maintainable under Section 115 of the CPC read with Section 50(1) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 when a District Judge has made an order in his revisional jurisdiction under Section 50(2) of the Act. This very question had come up for consideration before a Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Krishnaji Venkatesh Shirodkar v. Gurupad Shivram Kavalekar and Ors. ILR (1978) Kar. 1585, Venkataramiah, J., as he then was, speaking for the Full Bench held:-The second for consideration is whether the declaration made in Section 50(2)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2186; 1987(32)ELT8(SC); JT1987(3)SC670; 1987LabIC1901; 1987(2)SCALE667; (1987)4SCC525; [1988]1SCR357; 1988(1)LC143(SC)
Murari Mohon Dutt, J.1. Both the parties have made elaborate submissions at the preliminary hearing of the special leave petition filed by the appellant Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta. The special leave is granted and we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merit.2. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.3. The appellant, Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta, was appointed the Principal of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur, U.P., on June 4, 1984 and was confirmed in the said post on May 4, 1985. In view of existence of two unrecognised rival Committees of Management the State Government, in exercise of its power under Section 58 of the U.P. State Universities Act, appointed one of the Additional District Magistrates of the District the Authorised Controller of the Institution. The Authorised Controller was entitled to exe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(4)SC445; 1987(2)SCALE1002; 1987Supp(1)SCC497; [1988]1SCR335; 1989(1)SLJ188(SC)
ORDERAfter hearing learned Counsel for the parties at great length having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases we pass the following Order in the above writ petitions:1. The services of all doctors appointed either as Assistant Medical Officers or as Assistant Divisional Medical Officer on ad hoc basis upto 1.10.1984 shall be regularised in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission on the evaluation of their work and conduct on the basis of their confidential reports in respect of the period subsequent to 1.10.1982. Such evaluation shall be done by the Union Public Service Commission. The doctors so regularised shall be appointed as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers with effect from the date from which they have been continuously working as Assistant Medical officer/Assistant Divisional Medical Officer. The Railway shall be at liberty to terminate the services of those who are not so regularised. If the services of any of the petitioners appoint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(4)SC70; 1990Supp(1)SCC143
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1. By an order dated January 3, 1985, the State Government of Maharashtra, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section(1) of Section 432 of the CrPC, 1973, purported to remit that portion of the sentence of imprisonment, which is in excess of 20 years of total imprisonment, including all remissions, in the case of the petitioner undergoing imprisonment for life on his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, subject to his good behaviour and conduct in prison. The impugned order declining to give to the petitioner the benefit of premature release does not disclose any reasons. Presumably, the Government was misled that the case of the petitioner is governed by Section 433-A of the Code. According to the decision of this Court in Maru Ram etc. v. Union of India : 1980CriLJ1440 , the provision contained in Section 433-A of the Code is not applicable in those cases where the conviction was recorded prior to December 18, 1978 i.e. the date on whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2310; 64(1987)CLT256(SC); JT1987(4)SC1; 1987(2)SCALE639; 1987(Supp)SCC751; [1988]1SCR314
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. 'Sal seed' which is a minor forest produce at Orissa has again become the major subject of litigation between commercial users and the State of Orissa.2. The petitioners herein are holders of long term license from the Government of Orissa for collection of sal seeds from certain specified forest divisions on payment of royalty. The State of Orissa enacted Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) Act, 1981 (The 'Act'). It received the assent of President on August 21, 1981. The object of the Act was to prevent smuggling forest and also to provide State monopoly in such forest produce. Under Section 1(3) of the Act the State is empowered from time to time to issue a notification specifying the area or areas the forest produce in relation to which and the date from which the Act shall come into force. Purporting to act under this provision a notification dated December 9, 1982 was issued by the State Government directing that the Act shall come into force at o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2189; JT1987(3)SC651; 1987(2)SCALE671; 1987Supp(1)SCC236; [1988]1SCR328
M.H. Kania, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of a Special Bench comprising two learned Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 394 of 1970 along with Special Appeal No. 418 of 1970,Writ Petition No. 613 of 1971 and Writ Petition No. 910 of 1971.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows:Hari Shanker, the appellant before ' us, is a 'land holder' within the meaning of said expression in the United Provinces Tenancy Act, 1939 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). On 1st February, 1961, Hari Shanker filed a suit as contemplated under Section 171 of the said Act against one Habib Ahmad, who was his tenant in respect the land in suit on the ground that in 1943 Habib had sublet the suit land to his 'sub-tenant', Ida, and the said sub-lease was for more than five years and hence illegal -and in contravention of Section 40 of the said Act. The said suit was contested by Habib but a decree was passed in favour of Hari Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1988]171ITR443(SC); JT1987(3)SC647; 1987(2)SCALE664; (1987)4SCC454; [1988]1SCR308; [1988]70STC360(SC); 1988(1)LC149(SC)
Murari Mohon Dutt, J.1. In this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have prayed for issuance of the writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to compel the petitioners to take out licences and to pay market fee under the U.P. Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.2. The petitioners are the producers of khandsari sugar and are the owners of Khandsari Sugar Units which they operate with the aid of power crushers for the production of khandsari sugar. The petitioners claim that as they are only producers of khandsari sugar, they are not liable to take out any licence or to pay the market fee under the Act as illegally demanded by the respondents Mandi Samitis.3. It appears from the Preamble that the Act provides for the regulation of sale and purchase of agricultural produce and for the establishment, superintendence and control of market therefor in Uttar Pradesh. Section 5 of the Act provides for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC511
R.S. Pathak, C.J. and; Ranganath Misra, J.1. We have been taken through the additional affidavit filed by Mr P.V. Sinari, Inspector General of Prisons, Delhi Jail, New Delhi. We think it appropriate that the learned District Judge, Delhi, should visit Tihar Jail and after visiting the three parts of the jail, he should determine for himself whether the juvenile prisoners are being housed in that part of the jail which is said to have been reserved for them or whether they are to be found in the other two parts of the jail also which house adult prisoners. The learned District Judge will also ascertain whether the conditions in which the juvenile prisoners are kept correspond to the details mentioned in para 4 of the aforesaid additional affidavit. While making the enquiry the learned District Judge will peruse the registers of the Tihar Jail and determine whether any incidents of unnatural assault, including the assault alleged against one Narendra Kumar Upadhyaya in the article by one...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1037; (1987)3CompLJ69(SC); JT1987(3)SC630; 1987(2)SCALE611; (1987)4SCC463; [1988]1SCR279; 1988(1)LC75(SC)
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. This is a public interest litigation. The petitioner who is an active social worker has filed this petition inter alia for the issue of a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents other than Respondents 1 and 7 to 9 restraining them from letting out the trade effluents into the river Ganga till such time they put up necessary treatment plants for treating the trade effluents in order to arrest the pollution of water in the said river. Respondent 1 is the Union of India, Respondent 7 is the Chairman of the Central Board for Prevention and Control of Pollution, Respondent 8 is the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board and Respondent 9 is the Indian Standards Institute.2. Water is the most important of the elements of the nature. River valleys are the cradles of civilization from the beginning of the world. Aryan civilization grew around the towns and villages on the banks of the river Ganga. Varanasi which is one of the citi...
Tag this Judgment!