//
archives

district magistrate

This tag is associated with 9 posts

Upgrade to Municipal corporation = Section 8-AA(1) of the Act -under Section 3(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’) as applicable in Uttarakhand read with Article 243Q(2) of the Constitution = Principal Secretary Urban Development Department, Government of Uttarakhand has provided an opportunity of hearing to the objectors on their respective objections on 16.07.2011 from 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. at Kumbh Fair Controlling House, Haridwar and amongst the objectors there were several Municipal Councilors of Haridwar Municipality, namely Dinesh Joshi, Rakesh Prajapati, Yashoda Devi, Leela Devi, Ashok Sharma, Jagdhir Singh, Nikhil Mehta, Idris Ansari, Satya Narayan, Karuna Sharma, Sanjay Sharma, Radhey Krishna, Prabha Ghai and Ram Ahuja. Hence, the appellant, who was the Chairman of the Municipal Council, Haridwar could have also participated in the hearing in support of his objections. We cannot, therefore, find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court that an opportunity of hearing was actually given to all persons likely to be affected by the two notifications dated 21.07.2011. 13. At the time of hearing of this appeal, we were inclined to consider the other contention of Mr. Hansaria that the State Government must form an opinion that until the due constitution of the Municipal Corporation for an area, “it is expedient” to dissolve the Municipal Council from a specified date and to direct that all powers, functions and duties of the Corporation shall as from the specified date, be vested in and be exercised, performed and discharged by the Administrator appointed by the State Government in view of the language of sub-section (1) of Section 8-AA of the Act. But we find that this ground was not raised in the Writ Petition before the High Court nor raised in the special leave petition before this Court. We further find that pursuant to the two notifications dated 21.07.2011, the elections to the Municipal Corporation have been notified to be held and completed by 30.04.2013. Hence, even if the appellant succeeds on this point, we cannot direct restoration of the Haridwar Municipality after the constitution of the Municipal Corporation, Haridwar. For these reasons, we refrain from considering this question in this appeal and leave this question open to be decided in some other appropriate case.

published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40467 Page 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 4835 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1889 of 2012) Kamal Jora … Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & Anr. … Respondents J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. Leave granted. 2. … Continue reading

The profession of lawyer and that of a doctor stand on equal footing as both are professionals and so is the lawyer’s office and that of doctor’s clinic/dispensary or even a pathology lab. The building in question is recognized by the respondents themselves partial as residential in nature, therefore the portion of the doctor’s clinic/dispensary or lab situate therein would be a part of the residential premises. The area has also been notified by the Jhansi Development Authority as residential in nature. In short, the clinic/dispensary or laboratory is being run from a residential area and the portion would not be covered by commercial establishment or shop within the meaning of Sub-section (4) and 16 of Section 2 of the Adhiniyam and its market value is not determinable as a commercial building as provided under Rule 2 (d) of the Rules. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I hold that the authorities below have erred in treating the ground floor portion of the building in question to be commercial in nature for the reason that at one point of time a doctor’s clinic or a pathology lab was being run from there. It is a part of a residential building.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD  A F R Writ Petition No. 16843 of 2011 Satya Prakash Singh and another Petitioners Vs. State of U.P., and Others Respondents Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Petitioners are purchasers of two storied building vide registered sale deed dated 16.2.2009 for a sale consideration of Rs. 40 lacs, but for the … Continue reading

where sanction under Section 7 of the said Act is not obtained, the prosecution will have to be quashed but it would be open to the prosecution to start the prosecution afresh after obtaining sanction from the competent authority. Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, “the said Act”), as the controversy revolves round the ‘consent to prosecute’ contemplated therein. It reads thus: “Section 7: No court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government.” It must be stated here that by Act 54 of 2001, Section 7 was amended and the words ‘Central Government’ were substituted by the words ‘District Magistrate’.It is true that learned Sessions Judge has, by his order dated 13/9/2007 discharged the appellant of the charges under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the said Act because there was no sanction. But, the prosecution has now obtained sanction. The Sessions Judge has accepted the sanction and has directed that the trial should be started against the appellant for offences under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the said Act, as well. The order of the Sessions Judge is affirmed by the impugned order passed by the High Court. In view of the legal position as discussed above, and in the facts of the case, as narrated above, we see no reason to interfere in the matter and we direct the trial court to frame additional charges against the appellant under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the said Act and to proceed with the trial. Needless to say that the stay of further proceedings granted by this court on 5/7/2011 shall stand vacated.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 719 OF 2012 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Cri.) No.3989 of 2011]   DEEPAK KHINCHI … APPELLANT Versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN … RESPONDENT   JUDGMENT (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal, by grant of special leave, … Continue reading

provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C can be invoked in stead of filing of second revision petition, in case, there is apparent injustice. Thus, the facts of the present case do not warrant any interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C being a second revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C. If it was CRM No. M 37269 of 2010 11 permitted, then every petition facing the bar under Section 397(3) could be challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Thus, the present petition is neither maintainable nor is there any merit in the same. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed on both counts i.e. on the question of maintainability as well as on merits.

CRMNo. M 37269 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH — CRM No. M 37269 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.05.2011 Maghar Singh and another …….. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others …….Respondent(s) Coram: Hon’ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. T S Sangha, Senior Advocate with … Continue reading

Reassessment of stamp duty and penalty as per stamp act by addl. collector – found wrong=The District Magistrate, Lucknow made a spot inspection of the property in question on 21.07.2003. During inspection, the land has been found having an area of 12,099 sq. ft. with a two storey building having an area of 5,646.3 sq. ft. at ground floor and an area of 5192.3 sq. ft. at the first floor. In the inspection report, the property in question has been valued for Rs. 3,87,74,097/- and the stamp duty on the said property has been calculated by the competent authority as Rs. 38,78,000/-. However, at the time of purchase, respondents herein paid Rs. 15,53,000/- as Stamp duty, 2 =Merely because the property is being used for commercial purpose at the later point of time may not be a relevant criterion for assessing the value for the purpose of stamp duty.

REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 33851 of 2009     State of U.P. & Ors. …. Appellant (s)   Versus   Ambrish Tandon & Anr. …. Respondent(s)     J U D G M E N T … Continue reading

Andhra Pradesh Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot Leggers Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.=No doubt, the offences alleged to have been committed by the appellant are such as to attract punishment under the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, but that in our view has to be done under the said laws and taking recourse to preventive detention laws would not be warranted

Crl.A.67/12 1   REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.67 OF 2012 [@ SLP(Crl) No(s).8114 of 2011]     MUNAGALA YADAMMA Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF A.P. & ORS. Respondent(s)     O R D E R Leave granted. 2. The appellant’s husband, Shri Munagala Anjaiah, son of Gandaian, … Continue reading

land acquisition – when to invoke urgent clause – The series of events shows lethargy and lackadaisical attitude of the State Government. In the light of the above circumstances, the respondents are not justified in invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act, thereby depriving the appellants of their valuable right to raise objections and opportunity of hearing before the authorities in order to persuade them that their property may not be acquired

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6293 OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15151 of 2011) Devendra Singh & Ors. ………….. Appellants versus State of U.P. & Ors. ………..Respondents J U D G M E N T H.L. Dattu, J. Leave granted. 2). This appeal, … Continue reading

contempt of court =in this suo motu proceeding, the High Court has not made out a case to punish all the appellants under “criminal contempt” in terms of Section 2 (c) read with Section 12 of the Act. =A Committee was constituted by some local persons, who were active in public life, along with lawyers at Jalpaiguri named “Circuit Bench `O’ Sarbik Unnayan Dabi Adyay Samannya Committee, Jalpaiguri” (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee”). The Committee had passed a resolution for the formation of a High Court Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri and in order to achieve the said purpose to stage Satyagrah in front of the District Court at Jalpaiguri. The Members of the Committee put theirresolution into action on 15.12.2006 and started agitation outside the main gate of the District Court premises and put up a rostrum there on which a number of 2

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 339 OF 2007 Anup Bhushan Vohra …. Appellant(s) Versus The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Calcutta …. Respondent(s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 340, 345, 346, 358, 362, 388, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399 and 400 … Continue reading

We are, in this appeal, concerned with the legality of the direction given by a Division Bench of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital to the State Government to pay an amount of Rs.70,99,951.50 with interest to the respondents, placing reliance on an inter-departmental communication sent by the District Magistrate, Haridwar to the Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5374 OF 2005 State of Uttaranchal & Anr. … Appellants Vs Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors. …Respondents J U D G M E N T K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. We are, in this appeal, concerned with the legality of the direction given by … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,886,953 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com