//
archives

public interest litigation

This tag is associated with 12 posts

Public interest litigations -Not maintainable when issues are pending in another forum – whether the properties of Galta Peeth have to be treated as public properties or private properties and whether the Mahant has right to alienate them? and whether there is any right of succession to the Galta Peeth and its properties as per order dated 09-06-1943 appointing Mahant; and whether the Mahant was to administer the properties during his life time? – High court dismissed as both issues are pending before the commissioner – Apex court too held same and dismissed the SLP =Public interest litigations -whether the properties of Galta Peeth have to be treated as public properties or private properties and whether the Mahant has right to alienate them? and whether there is any right of succession to the Galta Peeth and its properties as per order dated 09-06-1943 appointing Mahant; and whether the Mahant was to administer the properties during his life time? – High court dismissed as both issues are pending before the commissioner – Apex court too held same and dismissed the SLP = JAIPUR SHAHAR HINDU VIKAS SAMITI … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. … RESPONDENTS=2014 (April.Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41424

Public interest litigations -Not maintainable when issues are pending in another forum – whether the properties  of Galta Peeth have to be treated as public properties or  private  properties and whether the Mahant has right to alienate them? and whether there is any right of  succession  to  the Galta Peeth and its properties as per  order  dated  09-06-1943  appointing Mahant; and … Continue reading

Public interest litigation questioning the appointment of Mr. U.K.Sinha as chairman of SEBI -In our opinion,the petition does not satisfy the test of utmost good faith which is required to maintain public interest litigation. Apex court dismissed the writ filed under Art.32 of Indian constitution =Arun Kumar Agrawal …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents – Reported in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40945

Public interest litigation questioning the appointment of Mr. U.K.Sinha as chairman of SEBI -In our  opinion,the petition does not satisfy the test of utmost good faith  which  is required to maintain public interest litigation. Apex court dismissed the writ filed under Art.32 of Indian constitution =   This writ petition has been filed by one … Continue reading

jurisdiction of a Single Judge and of Benches of the Court.= JURISDICTION OF A SINGLE JUDGE AND OF BENCHES OF THE COURT 1. Cases ordinarily to be heard by a single Judge—Subject to the provisos hereinafter set forth the following classes of cases shall ordinarily be heard and disposed of by a Judge setting alone: (i) to (xvii) xxx xxx xxx (xviii) (a) Application or petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of any directions, orders or writs in the nature of Mandamus, prohibition, quo-warranto or certiorari for the enforcement of fundamental rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India or for any other purpose, except: (i) Petitions where vires of Acts or statutory rules, regulations, or bye-laws are challenged. (ii) Petitions where personal liberty is involved. (iii) Petitions pertaining to all Revenue/tax matters including entertainment taxes, except Municipal Tax. (iv) Petitions arising from the orders of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction/Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction or seeking directions to them; and (v) Petitions pertaining to Public Interest litigation. (vi) Petitions pertaining to the award to Tenders. (vii) Petitions relating to Co-operative Societies. (viii) Petitions being service matters of Armed Forces of the Union. (ix) Petitions arising out of Land Acquisition. (x) Petitions concerning orders passed by the High Court on the administrative side. Provided that as regards pending cases, the learned single Judge may hear the part-heard matters. Explanation: The preliminary hearing for admission and final disposal of applications and petitions pertaining to matters mentioned in clause (i) to (x) of sub-rule (xviii)(a) above shall however be before a Bench of two Judges and before a Single Bench when there is no sitting of Division Bench.” Rule 4, which relates to jurisdiction of a Bench of two Judges, also reads as under: “4. All cases to be disposed of by a Bench of two Judges save as provided by law or by these rules—Save as provided by law or by these rules or by special order of the Chief Justice, all cases shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges.” A bare reading of the above reproduced provisions makes it clear that the petition filed by respondent No.1 for quashing order dated 31.12.2008 could be heard only by Single Bench of the Delhi High Court. However, by disguising the petition as a Public Interest Litigation, respondent No.1 succeeded in getting the same listed before the Division Bench of the High Court. Unfortunately, the Division Bench did not deal with the objection raised by the appellant to the maintainability of the petition filed by respondent No.1 and proceeded to decide the matter on merits which, in our considered view, was legally impermissible. 15. We are not suggesting that respondent No.1 had indulged in Bench hunting but it needs to be emphasised that every Bench of the High Court should scrupulously follow the relevant rules and should not violate statutory provisions specifying its jurisdiction, else the sanctity of the rules relating to distribution of causes between the Single, the Division Bench and larger Benches will be lost. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The writ petition filed by respondent No.1 shall now be listed before a Single Judge of the High Court, who shall decide the same without being influenced by the observations contained in the impugned order or this order.

 published in       http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40797                     NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 8288 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 27387 of 2012) M/s. Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited ….Appellant versus Jan Chetna and others ….Respondents     … Continue reading

Allotment of Water to Kutuch District fro Sardar Sarovar =Aggrieved by the meager allocation of water from Sardar Sarovar Project to the District of Kutch they approached the Gujarat High Court in a public interest litigation inter alia praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent, the State of Gujarat and its functionaries to allocate more water from Sardar Sarovar Project to the District of Kutch. By the impugned order the prayer made by the appellants has been rejected and against the dismissal of the writ petition they are before us with the leave of the Court.= “We are of the opinion that the prayer for allocation of adequate water in Kuchchh district is not one which can be a matter of judicial review. It is for the executive authorities to look into this matter= The complaint of the appellants of non-adherence to the mandate of Article 38(2) of the Constitution is also misconceived. The State, in our opinion, is to strive to minimize the inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities not only amongst individuals but also amongst group of people residing in different parts or engaged in different vocations. But this does not mean that for achieving that the State Government has to apply it on the basis of the number of people residing in different parts only. Other factors just cannot be forgotten. We are in total agreement with the conclusion and reasoning given by the High Court and we reiterate that there being no judicially manageable standards for allocation of water, any interference by this Court would mean interference with the day-to-day functioning of the State Government. In view of separation of powers, this Court cannot charter the said path. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly but without any order as to costs.

 published in    http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40555       REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2957 OF 2013 KACHCHH JAL SANKAT NIVARAN SAMITI & ORS. ..APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. …RESPONDENTS   JUDGMENT   CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,J. Appellant no. 1, Kachchh Jal Sankat Nivaran Samiti, claims to be a … Continue reading

Section 72 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1881= “Whether the work of quality audit of roads or work of similar nature involves “the execution of any work or supply of any materials or goods” within the meaning of Section 72 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1881 and can be awarded by the Commissioner only by inviting tenders, as contemplated by that provision?”= In the result, our answers to the question referred by the Division Bench is as under: “The work of quality audit of roads or work of similar nature to be done by a person who must enjoy trust and confidence of the public authority is not covered by the expression “the execution of any work or supply of any materials or goods” within the meaning of Subsection (1) of Section 72 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, Hence, it is not necessary for Municipal Commissioner to assign such work only by inviting tenders as contemplated by the proviso, i.e. sub-section (3) of Section 72 of the said Act.”

reported / published in http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/judgements/2012/&fname=OSWP1312.pdf&smflag=N     Bombay High Court kambli 1 PIL-9.12 dt.12-12-12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.9 OF 2012 … Niyaz Ahmed Vanu …Petitioner v/s. 1.Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai (M.C.G.M.) 2.The Municipal Commissioner, (M.C.G.M.) 3.The Chief Engineer (Roads Transport & Bridges) (M.C.G.M.) 4.M/s.SGS … Continue reading

SAUGHT EXEMPTION FROM URBAN LAND CEILING FOR DONATION, LATER WITHDRAWN BY THE GOVT. AND LATER ALLOTTED THE SAME ON CONSIDERATION TO THE SAME PROPOSED DONEE UNDER SEC.23 [4] OF ACT, SO THE DONEE BECOMES ABSOLUTE OWNER BUT NOT DONEE= We are of the considered opinion that, since the Appellant-Society has become the absolute owner of the land by virtue of the order dated 13.02.2006 passed by the State Government, the Appellant- Society is at liberty to use the property in question to its benefit and advantage and the Writ Court, therefore, was not justified in making certain observations, which would come in the way of Appellant-Society in utilizing the land to its maximum advantage. 16. In the result, while allowing this appeal, we set aside the following observations made by the High Court in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment and order: “…Accordingly, we can only direct M/s. Indo Arab league to strictly adhere to the laws applicable for the purpose of making any construction and as per the undertaking given by it in paragraph – 5 of their counter affidavit. The construction made also shall not be alienated in any manner, but have to be used only for cultural or religious purpose.”

‘ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5615 of 2007) INDO ARAB LEAGUE Appellant THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VERSUS A.FAIZUDDIN & ORS. Respondents O R D E R 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. This appeal by special leave is directed … Continue reading

High court jurisdiction = in a Public Interest Litigation (Civil Writ Petition No.837 of 2001) whereby the High Court held that the consumer has the fundamental right to know whether the food products, cosmetics and drugs available for human consumption are of non-vegetarian or vegetarian origin and ordered as follows: “In so far as cosmetics are concerned, the same must be treated at par with articles/packages of food for the purpose of disclosure of their ingredients. Till such time the requisite amendments are carried out, we direct as under:- (1) Where a cosmetic or a drug other than life saving drug, as the case may be, contains ingredients of non- vegetarian origin, the package shall carry label bearing the following symbol in red colour on the principal display panel just close a proximity to name or brand name of the drug or cosmetic:- (2) Where a cosmetic or a drug other than life saving drug, as the case may be, contains ingredients wholly of vegetarian origin, the package shall bear the following symbol in green colour on the principal display panel just close in proximity to name or brand name of the drug or cosmetic:- (3) Where a cosmetic or a drug other than life saving drug has ingredients of vegetarian of non- vegetarian origin, a declaration shall be made in writing on the package indicating the nature of the origin of the product. (4) The Director General of Health Services/Drugs Controller General, Government of India, shall issue a list of Life Saving Drugs within a period of two months.” = whether in facts and circumstances noted above, the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of mandamus calling upon the Central Government to discharge its duty by amending rules. High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has no jurisdiction to direct the Executive to exercise power by way of subordinate Legislation pursuant to power delegated by the Legislature to enact a law in a particular manner, as has been done in the present case. For the same reason, it was also not open to the High Court to suggest any interim arrangement as has been given by the impugned judgment. The writ petition filed by Respondent being not maintainable for issuance of such direction, the High Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition in limine. 30. In the result, both the appeals are allowed and the order and directions issued by the High Court are set aside but there shall be no orders

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5644 OF 2003 INDIAN SOAPS & TOILETRIES MAKERS ASSOCIATION …. APPELLANT Versus OZAIR HUSAIN AND OTHERS .… RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5645 OF 2003 UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER …. APPELLANTS Versus OZAIR HUSAIN .… RESPONDENT J U D G … Continue reading

BT . BRINJAL ETC., Genetically Modified Organisms (for short ‘GMOs’)(1) There shall be the Technical Expert Committee, the constitution whereof shall be as follows: a. Prof. V.L. Chopra Specialization/Work Focus:Plant Biotechnology Genetics and Agricultural Science. Former Member, Planning Commission and Former Member, Science & Advisory Committee to the PMO, Recepient of several awards including the Padma Bhushan. b. Dr. Imran Siddiqui Specialization/Work Focus : Plant Development Biology Scientist & Group Leader, Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology (CCMB) c. Prof. P.S. Ramakrishnan Emeritus Prof. JNU Work Focus : Environmental Sciences and Biodiversity. d. Dr. P.C. Chauhan, D.Phil (Sci) Work Focus : Genetics toxicology and food safety e. Prof. P.C. Kesavan Distinguished Fellow, MS SRF (Research Foundation), Emeritus Professor, CSD, IGNOU, New Delhi. Work Focus : Genetics Toxicology, Radiation Biology and Sustainable Science. f. Dr. B. Sivakumar Former Director, National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), Hyderabad. (2) The terms of reference of the said Committee shall be as follows: a. To review and recommend the nature of sequencing of risk assessment (environment and health safety) studies that need to be done for all GM crops before they are released into the environment. b. To recommend the sequencing of these tests in order to specify the point at which environmental release though Open Field Trials can be permitted. c. To advise on whether a proper evaluation of the genetically engineered crop/plants is scientifically tenable in the green house conditions and whether it is possible to replicate the conditions for testing under different agro ecological regions and seasons in greenhouse? d. To advise on whether specific conditions imposed by the regulatory agencies for Open Field Trials are adequate. If not, recommend what additional measures/safeguards are required to prevent potential risks to the environment. e. Examine the feasibility of prescribing validated protocols and active testing for contamination at a level that would preclude any escaped material from causing an adverse effect on the environment. f. To advise on whether institutions/laboratories in India have the state-of-art testing facilities and professional expertise to conduct various biosafety tests and recommend mechanism to strengthen the same. If no such institutions are available in India, recommend setting up an independent testing laboratory/institution. g. The Expert Committee would be free to review reports or studies authored by national and international scientists if it was felt necessary. The petitioners opined that they would like to formally propose three Expert Reports from Prof. David Andow, Prof. Jack Heinemann and Dr. Doug Gurian Sherman to be a formal part of the Committee’s deliberations. The MoEF may similarly nominate which experts they choose in this exercise. 3. The Court will highly appreciate if the said Committee submits its final report to the Court within three months from today. 4. The Committee may hear the Government, petitioners and any other intervenor in this petition, who, in the opinion of the Committee, shall help the cause of expeditious and accurate finalization of its report. 5. In the event and for any reason whatsoever, the Committee is unable to submit its final report to the Court within the time stipulated in this order, we direct that the Committee should instead submit its interim report within the same period to the Court on the following issue: “Whether there should or should not be any ban, partial or otherwise, upon conducting of open field tests of the GMOs? In the event open field trials are permitted, what protocol should be followed and conditions, if any, that may be imposed by the Court for implementation of open field trials.” 7. Let the matter stand over to 6th August, 2012.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.260 OF 2005 ARUNA RODRIGUES & ORS. … Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 115 OF 2004 AND CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 295 OF 2007 IN W.P.(C) NO.260/2005 O R D E R Swatanter … Continue reading

Alarming rise in heinous crimes like kidnapping, sexual assault on women and dacoity have impinged upon the right to life and the right to live in a safe environment which are within the contours of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. One of the contributory factors to such increase is use of black films on windows/windshields of four-wheeled vehicles. The petitioner, as a public spirited person, has invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution in the present public interest litigation, praying for certain directions to stop this menace. According to the petitioner, this Court should issue a writ or direction requiring use of such safety glasses on the windows/windshields in vehicles having 100 per cent Visual Light Transmission (for short ‘VLT’) only and, to that extent, the petitioner challenges the correctness of Rule 100 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short “the Rules”). He also prays for prohibition on use of black films on the glasses of the vehicles, proper implementation of law in that behalf and finally, for taking stringent actions against the offenders, using vehicles with black filmed glasses. He also prays that a larger police force should be deputed to monitor such offences. The manufacturer of the vehicle may manufacture the vehicles with tinted glasses which have Visual Light Transmission (VLT) of safety glasses windscreen (front and rear) as 70 per cent VLT and side glasses as 40 per cent VLT, respectively. No black film or any other material can be pasted on the windscreens and side glasses of a vehicle. 27. For the reasons afore-stated, we prohibit the use of black films of any VLT percentage or any other material upon the safety glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side glasses of all vehicles throughout the country. The Home Secretary, Director General/Commissioner of Police of the respective States/Centre shall ensure compliance with this direction. The directions contained in this judgment shall become operative and enforceable with effect from 4th May, 2012. 28. With the above directions, we partially allow this writ petition and prohibit use of black films of any percentage VLT upon the safety glasses, windscreens (front and rear) and side glasses. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 265 OF 2011 Avishek Goenka … Petitioner Versus Union of India & Anr. … Respondents     J U D G M E N T   Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Alarming rise in heinous crimes like kidnapping, sexual assault on women … Continue reading

escape of four dreaded criminals from the police =Ram Prakash Singh filed a Writ Petition (being Writ Petition No. 747 of 2001) in the nature of Public Interest Litigation before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior. 3. In that Writ Petition, it was alleged that after escape of four dacoits noted above from police custody, the police has started torturing the persons from Baghel community in the Gwalior district. =The escape of four dreaded criminals from the police

Criminal Appeal NO. 104 OF 2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5877 of 2004) 1     REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRININAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2012 (arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5877 of 2004)   STATE OF M.P. & ANR. Appellant (s) VERSUS RAM PRAKASH … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,848,829 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,901 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com