Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1941; 2003(3)AWC2417(SC); JT2003(5)SC74; 2003(2)KLT106(SC); (2003)2MLJ137(SC); RLW2003(2)SC305; 2003(3)SCALE107; (2003)4SCC739; [2003]2SCR908; (2003)2UPLBEC1667
Dharamadhikari, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Andhra Pradeshand its Authorities against the Division Bench judgment dated22.7.1999 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Writ AppealNo. 652 of 1999. The Division Bench upheld the order dated29.12.1998 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court.2. On the basis of the facts and circumstances the High Courtcame to the conclusion that the acquisition of the school building withits appurtenant land by the State was an action liable to be quashedbeing 'malicious in law.'3. The school building which is in the heart of old city ofHyderabad was in possession of the State as tenant of therespondent from the year 1954. In the year 1977,respondent/landlord approached the Rent Controller, Hyderabad foreviction of the State from school building on the ground that it hadbecome dilapidated and required reconstruction. By order dated15.12.1979, the Rent Controller, Hyderabad dismissed the evictionpetition. The Additional C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4121; 2003(87)ECC6; 2003(153)ELT485(SC); (2003)3MLJ87(SC); 2003(3)SCALE664; (2003)5SCC333; [2003]2SCR924
B.P. Singh, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to the date from which the respondent is entitled to the benefit of exemption contained in the notification dated March 1, 1986, issued by the Govt. of India in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-rule 1 of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. While the appellant contends that the benefit of exemption can be availed only with effect from the date on which the certificate of registration is issued by the Director of Industries in any State, the respondent contends that the benefit of such exemption must be extended from the date of the application for registration and the respondent should not be deprived of the benefit of such exemption merely because on account of administrative delays the certificate of registration is issued much later.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the business of manufacturing cooling towers. It commenced production with effec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1947; 2003(5)ALT82(SC); 2003(3)SCALE54; (2003)5SCC350; [2003]2SCR781
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Whether the Government of Andhra Pradesh while framing A.P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 made in terms of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India was bound to provide reservation for 15% of non-local seats, although reservations in terms of its policy decision had been taken in respect of seats available for local candidates, is the question involved in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 29.03.200 of the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 2. The First Respondent herein is said to be a member of Scheduled Caste. He questioned the validity of policy decision of the State of Andhra Pradesh as regards non-reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes by filing a writ petition in the High Court. 3. A learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by a judgment and order dated 27.10.1998 directed the appellant herein to reserve seats for the reserved category for 15% op...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2000; 2003(4)CTC304; [2003(97)FLR1114]; JT2003(2)SC610; 2003(3)SCALE29; (2003)5SCC604; [2003]2SCR757; 2003(3)SLJ220(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Criteria for determining inter se seniority amongst the officers of Haryana Judicial Service: whether on the basis of merit in terms of the merit list or the date of joining, is the core question involved in this appeal which arises out of a Judgment and Order dated 18.8.1999 passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 3713 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Haryana Public Service Commission, respondent No. 3 herein issued an advertisement notifying 24 vacancies of Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) on or about 16.8.1988. The break up of the said posts is as under:(i)Vacancies for General Category: 9(ii)Vacancies reserved for scheduled castes: 10 (including five vacancies which remained unfilled on account of non-availability of candidates belonging to sc Category in the competitive exam. Held in 1985-86) (Advertised 3rd time).(iii)Vacancies reserved for ESM: 3(iv)Vacancies reserved for Backward Cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1201; 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)389; [2003(97)FLR422]; (2003)3GLR281; [2003]2SCR799; 2003(2)LC919(SC)
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. By these four appeals, we are called upon to consider the legality, correctness and validity of the impugned Notification dated 7.12.2000 appointing Shri N.A. Acharya as the President of the Industrial Court at Ahmedabad. A Notification dated 7.12.2000. In this regard, was issued by the order of Governor by the Labour and Employment Department of the Government of Gujarat in the Gujarat Government Gazette whereby Shri N.A. Acharya had been appointed as the President of the Industrial Court which was under challenge before the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application Nos. 12665/2000, 79/2001, 80/2001 and 93/2001 filed by Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat, Gujarat Industrial Court Judges' Association Labour Laws Practitioners Association and Surat Textile Labour Union. As per the directions of the Chief Justice, the applicants were placed before the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court. The Full Bench, by its judgment dated 4.5.2001, allowed the applications...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1956; 2003(3)ALT1(SC); 2003(3)SCALE88; (2003)9SCC564; [2003]2SCR832; (2003)2UPLBEC1001
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Whether the State of Andhra Pradesh had the legislative competenceto enact Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Act, 1988 (Act16 of 1988) (hereinafter called as 'the 1988 Act') is the core questioninvolved in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order passed bythe Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 17222 of 1988. 2. The fact leading to filing of the Writ Petition by the respondent herein questioning the vires of the 1988 Act arose in the following circumstances:3. The Central Government evolved a National Education Policy in the year 1986 pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, recommendations were made for creating a State Level Planning for coordination of the High Education through Councils of Higher Education. Such councils were proposed to be set up as statutory bodies having regard to the fact that there did not exist any effective machinery for planning and coordination of higher education at the State level vis-a-vis impl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1966; (2003)3CompLJ55(SC); 2003CriLJ1702; JT2003(3)SC74; 2003(3)SCALE44; (2003)10SCC421; [2003]2SCR741
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. Leave granted.2. This is an appeal preferred by the Orissa State (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Board (for short, 'Board'), against the judgment of the Orissa High Court passed in Criminal Revision, upholding the order passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge Rourkela, quashing the charges framed against the respondent under Section 37(1) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short 'the Act').3. According to the prosecution, the respondent Orient Paper Mills Brajraj Nagar, Dist. Sambalpur, engaged in manufacturing of Paper and Paper Board Caustic Soda and Chlorine etc. is situate in an area which falls within the Air Pollution Control Area, as per Gazette Notifications Nos. 1292 dated 20.7.84, No. 1021 dated 5.8.86 and No. 462 dated 17.3.88. The consent was granted to the respondent by the Board, on 7.3.88 which was valid up to 31.3.89, and it was renewed up to 31.3.91. It was found that the respondent No. 1 was emitting the air pollutants...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1216; 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)316; JT2003(3)SC86; 2003(3)SCALE124; (2003)5SCC669; [2003]2SCR852; 2003(2)LC1427(SC)
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. These three appeals are directed against the final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in Writ Petition Nos. 3754/2000, 3753/2000 and 3698/2000. The common questions that arise in these appeals are as to whether the State of Maharashtra is empowered to charge from the liquor licences, under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Prohibition Act'), at whose premises Government staff is posted for supervision as per the provision of Section 58A, are governed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 and other rules, resolutions made by the State Government under the power vested in it by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to fix the pay and other allowances of its employees, for levy and recovery of the cost of supervision to be paid to the State Government as contemplated under Section 58A of the Act or not? The further question may also arise as to whether the Commissioner is e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2414; (2003)2MLJ132(SC); (2003)134PLR269; 2003(3)SCALE5; (2003)4SCC485; [2003]2SCR707; 2003(2)LC991(SC)
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The appellants in these two appeals are land-owners whose land wasacquired for the purpose of starting an 'Industrial Focal Point' by the State ofPunjab. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 waspublished on 7.5.1991. Appellants in Civil Appeal No. 66 of 1998 filed objectionson 13.6.1991. Section 6 declaration was made on 18.3.1992 and the award waspassed on 15.3.1994. The appellants filed writ petitions before the HighCourt of Punjab & Haryana, challenging the acquisition proceedings. TheDivision Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions and aggrieved bythe same the present appeals are filed.2. Though the appellants had raised several grounds in the writ petitions,those grounds were not urged before us. The appellants urged only twogrounds, namely: there was no Section 5A inquiry and the appellants werenot given personal hearing regarding the objections filed by them; and secondly,the lands owned by them were liable to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1416; 2003(3)AWC1948(SC); (2003)3CALLT15(SC); [2003(97)FLR1034]; 2003(3)JKJ41[SC]; JT2003(3)SC201; 2003(3)SCALE8; (2003)4SCC531; [2003]2SCR721; 2003(2)SLJ395(SC);
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The Border Security Force (BSF) has a Training center and School (TCS) in the District of Hazaribagh. The said training center is one of the units of the BSF. It has several wings, namely, Admn. Wing, BTC (Basic Training center), STS (Specialist Training School) and STC (Subsidiary Training center) etc. All the wings of TCS are said to be located in thesame premises.2. The respondent herein was a Deputy Commandant in the TCS. The Unit Commandant of TCS happened to be one Mr. B.S. Garcha. In or about July, 1990 the respondent was accused of having received gratification from two persons, namely, B.K. Jha and Santosh Jha for procuring their recruitment as constables in the BSF which was discovered in the following circumstances. 3. On 17.7.1990 a sum of Rs. 1700/- was said to have been stolen from the said B.K. Jha. Allegedly, he gave out that the respondent had accepted a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for his recruitment. On 16.7.1990 one Mr. Raj Singh, Deputy Commandant reported ...
Tag this Judgment!