advocatemmmohan
the State Government
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
Contempt petition – whether the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of judgment dated 14.3.2012 passed in the case of BPSL or not. – three petitioners pray that the same directions as given in favour of BPSL in judgment dated 14.3.2012, be passed in their cases as well. This they claim on the basis of parity with BPSL. However, we are constrained to hold that, on the basis of such an argument, they cannot approach this court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution by filing writ petitions. – Apex court dismissed the writs leaving the issue open = Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. ….. Appellant(s) Versus Rajesh Verma & Ors.. ….. Respondent (s) = 2014 ( April.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41444
Contempt petition – whether the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of judgment dated 14.3.2012 passed in the case of BPSL or not. – three petitioners pray that the same directions as given in favour of BPSL in judgment dated 14.3.2012, be passed in their cases as well. This they claim on the basis of parity with BPSL. … Continue reading
