advocatemmmohan
State Government
Service matter – Regulation 5(4) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 – for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service – Dropping disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent was recommended for promotion and was selected pending case in Central Tribunal – Central Tribunal allowed the O.A. – High court reversed the same – Apex court held that the State Government misled the UPSC which resulted in wrong assessment of service records of 1st respondent in violation of Regulation 5(4) read with Regulation 6 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. -The Tribunal noticed that the State Government dropped the charges against the 1st respondent without giving detailed reasons for such action. Considering the same the Tribunal held that the State Government failed to furnish the valid reasons for dropping charges and for subsequent issuance of integrity certificate to the 1st respondent. For the said reason theTribunal held that the action on the part of the State is a case of hasty decision.-The High Court failed to appreciate the guidelines dated 4th April, 2007 issued by the State Government with regard to the ACR and wrongly accepted the stand of the respondents that invalid ACRs were not to be considered. The High Court also exceeded its jurisdiction in discussing the charges framed against the 1st respondent and in justifying the grounds for dropping the charges, though it was not disclosed by the State Government. and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 8th July, 2013 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.5508 of 2013, upheld the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 18th February, 2013 with direction to the respondent(s) to reconsider the name of the appellant viz-a-viz 1st respondent for promotion to the post of Indian Administrative Service against the vacancies for the year 2009 = CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2014 (arising out of SLP(C)No.26223 of 2013) G. MOHANASUNDARAM … APPELLANT VERSUS R. NANTHAGOPAL AND ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41776
Service matter – Regulation 5(4) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 – for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service – Dropping disciplinary proceedings against the 1st respondent was recommended for promotion and was selected pending case in Central Tribunal – Central Tribunal allowed the O.A. – High court reversed the same … Continue reading
PIL- challenge – constitutional validity of sec.3 ,77 (3)(b) and Section 77 (6) of M.P. State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – appointment of quasi judicial authorities who have no knowledge in legal filed – High court dismissed the writ – Apex court too dismissed the writ but held that we direct that the State Government shall, keeping in mind the objective of the Act, the functions which the Registrar, Joint Registrar etc. are required to perform and commensurate with those, appointment of suitable persons shall be made. Likewise, having regard to the fact that the Chairman of the Tribunal is to be a judicial person, namely, Former Judge of the High Court or the District Judge, we are of the opinion that for appointment of the Chairman and the Members of the Tribunal, the respondent- State is duty bound to keep in mind and follow the mandate of the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in R.Gandhi (supra). Thus, for appointment of the Chairman and Members of the Tribunal, the selection to these posts should preferably be made by the Public Service Commission in consultation with the High Court.= Satya Pal Anand ….Petitioner Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. …Respondents = 2014 ( May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41509
PIL- challenge – constitutional validity of sec.3 ,77 (3)(b) and Section 77 (6) of M.P. State Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 – appointment of quasi judicial authorities who have no knowledge in legal filed – High court dismissed the writ – Apex court too dismissed the writ but held that we direct that the State Government shall, keeping in mind the objective of the Act, … Continue reading
Ganga Rape of a woman – Reliefs to victim granted by Apex court – who loved other cast man , by the order of cast panchayat elders – Apex court taken suomoto case and order for investigation and obtained report and Apex court held that we are of the view that the victim should be given a compensation of at least Rs. 5 lakhs for rehabilitation by the State. We, accordingly, direct the Respondent No. 1 (State of West Bengal through Chief Secretary) to make a payment of Rs. 5 lakhs, in addition to the already sanctioned amount of Rs. 50,000, within one month from today and that Directed to registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and the Police officers are duty bound to register the same. and directed that Likewise, all hospitals, public or private, whether run by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any other person, are statutorily obligated under Section 357C to provide the first-aid or medical treatment, free of cost, to the victims of any offence covered under Sections 326A, 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D or Section 376E of the IPC.=1 SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 24 OF 2014 In Re: Indian Woman says gang-raped on orders of Village Court published in Business & Financial News dated 23.01.2014= 2014 (March . Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41349
Ganga Rape of a woman – Reliefs to victim granted by Apex court – who loved other cast man , by the order of cast panchayat elders – Apex court taken suomoto case and order for investigation and obtained report and Apex court held that we are of the view that the victim should be given a compensation of at … Continue reading
Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent-Union of India, State Governments and Union Territories to strictly enforce the implementation of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 (in short ‘the Act’), – Apex court gave directions = Safai Karamchari Andolan & Ors. …. Petitioner (s) Versus Union of India & Ors. …. Respondent(s) = 2014 (March . Part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41346
Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent-Union of India, State Governments and Union Territories to strictly enforce the implementation of the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993 (in short ‘the Act’), – Apex court gave … Continue reading
the Protection of Rights of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, – Directions of Apex court not implemented by the state and central administrative bodies – Apex court gave further directions =Re. Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu …Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondent(s) = published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41092
the Protection of Rights of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, – Directions of Apex court not implemented by the state and central administrative bodies – Apex court gave further directions = this court on 3rd … Continue reading
Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test (TNTET) -2013 Notification/Advertisement No.13/2013 dated 22nd May, 2013 – fixing cut off marks at 60% with out considering communal basis reservations- Writ petition to quash the notification as unconstitutional – High court rejected the writ as it is a matter of policy , court’s have no business to interfere – Apex court confirmed the same and dismissed the SLP = Prof. A. Marx. …. Petitioner Verses Government of Tamil Nadu & Anr. …. Respondents = Published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41085
Tamil Nadu Teacher Eligibility Test (TNTET) -2013 Notification/Advertisement No.13/2013 dated 22nd May, 2013 – fixing cut off marks at 60% with out considering communal basis reservations- Writ petition to quash the notification as unconstitutional – High court rejected the writ as it is a matter of policy , court’s have no business to interfere – Apex court … Continue reading
Sec.197 Cr. P.C. – Sanction to prosecution – Since he was removed from service following the procedure laid down in Jharkhand police manual – No sanction to prosecute warranted – Apex court confirmed the orders of the high court = Fakhruzamma … Appellant Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr. … Respondent = published in /Cited in / Reported in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41073
Sec.197 Cr. P.C. – Sanction to prosecution – Since he was removed from service following the procedure laid down in Jharkhand police manual – No sanction to prosecute warranted – Apex court confirmed the orders of the high court = whether sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is necessary from the State Government before prosecuting the … Continue reading
RED LIGHT ON VEHICLES – only dignitaries as specified by central and state as per proviso (iii) to Rule 108(1) of the 1989 Rules and as prescribed in clauses ‘c’ and ‘d’ of Notifications dated 11.1.2002 and 28.7.2005 issued by the Central Government. – ambulance services, fire services, emergency maintenance etc, and police vehicles used as escorts or pilots or for law and order duties shall not be entitled to have red lights but lights of other colours, e.g., blue, white, multicoloured etc. – Clause 51 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2012 contains a provision for imposition of enhanced penalty. – misuse of the provisions of the 1989 Act and the 1989 Rules generally and the provisions of Rules 108 and 119 in particular. = Abhay Singh ….PETITIONER versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others …RESPONDENTS = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41060
RED LIGHT ON VEHICLES – only dignitaries as specified by central and state as per proviso (iii) to Rule 108(1) of the 1989 Rules and as prescribed in clauses ‘c’ and ‘d’ of Notifications dated 11.1.2002 and 28.7.2005 issued by the Central Government. – ambulance services, fire services, emergency maintenance etc, and police vehicles used as escorts or pilots or … Continue reading
Market fee on castor seeds purchased by company in the market area of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Baroda (for short “APMC”) – Apex court held as the company bought the seeds , it is not entitled for any exemption for fee as it is agriculture product = The respondent-Company, manufacturing castor oil from out of the castor seeds purchased by it comes under the jurisdiction of the market area of the APMC and therefore, it is liable for paying the market fees/cess for the trading activities carried out by it in the market area. APMC levied market fee on the castor seeds bought by the Company on the basis that castor seeds were brought within the market area of APMC. = AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE ……APPELLANT Versus BIOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. ….RESPONDENTS = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41040
Market fee on castor seeds purchased by company in the market area of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Baroda (for short “APMC”) – Apex court held as the company bought the seeds , it is not entitled for any exemption for fee as it is agriculture product = The respondent-Company, manufacturing castor oil … Continue reading
Legal Remembrancer’s Manual (for short, ‘LR Manual’) framed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) whether the respondent who had been appointed as District Government Counsel (Criminal) at Meerut in January, 1993 was entitled to have the term of his appointment renewed. – No = State of U.P. and others ….Appellants versus Ajay Kumar Sharma and another ….Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40968
Legal Remembrancer’s Manual (for short, ‘LR Manual’) framed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) whether the respondent who had been appointed as District Government Counsel (Criminal) at Meerut in January, 1993 was entitled to have the term of his … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 