advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
writ petition
Writ – Civil Suit by Auction Purchaser – Inter pleader suit by Tenant against the owner who purchased the property under court auction sale and also Union of India who claims to be owner under a Grant – who are entitled for rents is the question to be decided – High court held that since there are complicated issues writ not maintainable – with out evicting the auction purchaser due to process of law – Union of India not entitled for any rent from inter pleader suit plaintiff/ tenant and dismissed the writ and decreed the inter pleader suit in second appeal – Apex court held that The subject matter of the inter-pleader suit and the proceedings arising therefrom clearly pertains to the entitlement of the presently contesting parties to receive rent in respect of the property in question. The subject matter of the two proceedings i.e. inter-pleader suit and the appeals arising therefrom and the writ petitions filed by the appellant are, therefore, not directly and substantially the same so as to attract the principle of res judicata enshrined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petitions leaving it open for the appellant to avail the remedy of civil suit to get the title to the property adjudicated by a competent civil court, no fault, muchless any infirmity, can be found so as to warrant our interference. Accordingly, the civil appeal will have to be dismissed which we hereby do.The stand of the cantonment authority in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.175 of 1969, noted by us, is based on the terms of the old grant issued by the Governor General in Council on 12.09.1836. The legal effect of the terms of the said grant has been dealt with by this Court in Chief Executive Officer Vs. Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors.[1]and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kamla Verma[2] and have been understood to be conveying a lease of the building standing on the cantonment land with the power of resumption in the cantonment authority subject to payment of compensation for the cost of the building and not as a lease of the land itself. The above position has been emphasised for being kept in mind while dealing with all possible future litigations concerning the property in question without, of course, expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims/contention of any of the parties.= CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2147 OF 2006 PURSHOTTAM DAS TANDON DEAD BY LRS. … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER & ORS. …RESPONDENT (S) = 2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41825
Writ – Civil Suit by Auction Purchaser – Inter pleader suit by Tenant against the owner who purchased the property under court auction sale and also Union of India who claims to be owner under a Grant – who are entitled for rents is the question to be decided – High court held that since … Continue reading
Writ Petition – Territorial Jurisdiction – Disability compensation – was refused while he was in Gaya – As per interim order compensation was paid at Patna – at final hearing Patna High court dismissed the Writ – Apex court held that Prima facie, therefore, considering all the facts together, a part or fraction of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Patna High Court where he received a letter of refusal disentitling him from disability compensation.in our considered opinion, the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. As noticed above, at the time when the writ petition was heard for the purpose of grant of interim relief, the respondents instead of raising any objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction opposed the prayer on the ground that the writ petitioner- appellant was offered an amount of Rs.2.75 lakhs, but he refused to accept the same and challenged the order granting severance compensation by filing the writ petition. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.=CIVIL APPEAL NO.7414 OF 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) No.19549 of 2013) Nawal Kishore Sharma ….Appellant(s) Versus Union of India and Others …Respondent(s) = 2014 Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41814
Writ Petition – Territorial Jurisdiction – Disability compensation – was refused while he was in Gaya – As per interim order compensation was paid at Patna – at final hearing Patna High court dismissed the Writ – Apex court held that Prima facie, therefore, considering all the facts together, a part or fraction of cause of action … Continue reading
Service Matter – Back Door Posting – Temporarily appointed to the post of constable – show cause notice issued and service was also terminated – single judge dismissed the writ – DB allowed the writ – Apex court held that in the absence of any advertisement or selection process, the appointment of the respondent is not protected and could be validly terminated. Learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition while the Division Bench erred in interfering with the same. =CIVIL APPEAL NO._7392___2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.28971 of 2013) State of Bihar and Ors. … Appellant (s) Versus Chandreshwar Pathak … Respondent (s) = 2014 Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41813
Service Matter – Back Door Posting – Temporarily appointed to the post of constable – show cause notice issued and service was also terminated – single judge dismissed the writ – DB allowed the writ – Apex court held that in the absence of any advertisement or selection process, the appointment of the respondent is not … Continue reading
Bar Licence – not granted = SOMDEV KAPOOR Vs. STATE OF W.B. & ORS. published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40865
Bar Licence – not granted = Rule 8 of the West Bengal Excise (Selection of New Sites and Grant of License for Retail Sale of Liquor and Certain Other Intoxicants) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2003”), as amended in the year 2004. … Continue reading
Service matter – promotion = Appellants were absorbed in the RD Department as Overseers. Their previous service in Highways Department was also on the post of Overseers. In Rooplal’s case (supra), the Appellants were Sub- Inspectors of Boarder Security Force who were initially taken on deputation in Delhi Police as Sub- Inspectors (Executive) and were later on absorbed in Delhi Police in the same capacity. While fixing their seniority in Delhi Police, service already rendered by them as Sub-Inspectors in BSF was not taken into consideration. – The Appellants herein claimed the benefit of the previous service on the lower post of Overseer for determining the seniority on the higher post of Assistant Engineer. The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the Appellants had voluntarily accepted and given the option to be absorbed in the RD Department on the post of Overseer. No claim was made at that stage to be either absorbed or promoted as Assistant Engineer or to be given the benefit of the service already rendered by them in the Highways Department. Having considered the entire matter, we see no reason to differ with the view taken by the High Court. 32. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40839 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8758 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C.) No. 20986 of 2007) Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers Association …Appellant VERSUS The Secretary to Government Rural Development Department & Ors. …Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.8759 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C.) … Continue reading
Elections – Right of voter to vote none Candidates contested in Elections = None of the Above” (NOTA) may be provided in EVMs so that the voters= challenging the constitutional validity of Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (in short ‘the Rules’) to the extent that these provisions violate the secrecy of voting which is fundamental to the free and fair elections and is required to be maintained as per Section 128 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short ‘the RP Act’) and Rules 39 and 49-M of the Rules.- In the above backdrop, the petitioners herein prayed for declaring Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the Rules ultra vires and unconstitutional and also prayed for a direction to the Election Commission of India- Respondent No. 2 herein, to provide necessary provision in the ballot papers as well as in the electronic voting machines for the protection of the right of not to vote in order to keep the exercise of such right a secret under the existing RP Act/the Rules or under Article 324 of the Constitution.= we hold that Rules 41(2) & (3) and 49-O of the Rules are ultra vires Section 128 of the RP Act and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution to the extent they violate secrecy of voting. In view of our conclusion, we direct the Election Commission to provide necessary provision in the ballot papers/EVMs and another button called “None of the Above” (NOTA) may be provided in EVMs so that the voters, who come to the polling booth and decide not to vote for any of the candidates in the fray, are able to exercise their right not to vote while maintaining their right of secrecy. Inasmuch as the Election Commission itself is in favour of the provision for NOTA in EVMs, we direct the Election Commission to implement the same either in a phased manner or at a time with the assistance of the Government of India. We also direct the Government of India to provide necessary help for implementation of the above direction. Besides, we also direct the Election Commission to undertake awareness programmes to educate the masses. 62) The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40835 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 1 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 161 OF 2004 People’s Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. …. Petitioner (s) Versus Union of India & Anr. …. Respondent(s) 2 J U D G M E … Continue reading
cut off date for starting the professional courses can not be extended = it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioner to change the time-schedule when the last date for admitting the students, which was July 15, 2013, expired long ago. If the Central Government forwards the application to the DCI at this juncture, DCI shall hardly have any time to look into the feasibility of the scheme as per the requirements contained in Regulation 21. We have to keep in mind that in the schedule annexed to the Regulations 2006, six to eight months time is given to the DCI for this purpose. We are, thus, of the view that the High Court did not commit any error in holding that in the given circumstances mandamus could not be issued to the Central Government to exercise its discretionary powers in a particular manner to modify the time-schedule. Sanctity to the time-schedule has to be attached. It is too late in the day, in so far as present academic session is concerned, to give any direction.- This Court has highlighted the importance of cut off date for starting the professional courses, particularly medical courses, and repeatedly impressed upon that such deadline should be tinkered with. (See: Priya Gupta vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2012) 7 SCC 433 and Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs. State of U.P. (2013) 2 SCC 617. 10. We, thus, do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High Court. This petition is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40787 [REPORTABLE] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Civil) No. 22910 OF 2013 Educare Charitable Trust ……Petitioner Vs. Union of India & Anr. ….Respondents J U D G M E N T A.K.SIKRI,J. … Continue reading
What emerges from the above discussion can be summarized in the form of following directions: (i) The voter has the elementary right to know full particulars of a candidate who is to represent him in the Parliament/Assemblies and such right to get information is universally recognized. Thus, it is held that right to know about the candidate is a natural right flowing from the concept of democracy and is an integral part of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. (ii) The ultimate purpose of filing of affidavit along with the nomination paper is to effectuate the fundamental right of the citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The citizens are supposed to have the necessary information at the time of filing of nomination paper and for that purpose, the Returning Officer can very well compel a candidate to furnish the relevant information. (iii) Filing of affidavit with blank particulars will render the affidavit nugatory. (iv) It is the duty of the Returning Officer to check whether the information required is fully furnished at the time of filing of affidavit with the nomination paper since such information is very vital for giving effect to the ‘right to know’ of the citizens. If a candidate fails to fill the blanks even after the reminder by the Returning Officer, the nomination paper is fit to be rejected. We do comprehend that the power of Returning Officer to reject the nomination paper must be exercised very sparingly but the bar should not be laid so high that the justice itself is prejudiced. (v) We clarify to the extent that Para 73 of People’s Union for Civil Liberties case (supra) will not come in the way of the Returning Officer to reject the nomination paper when affidavit is filed with blank particulars. (vi) The candidate must take the minimum effort to explicitly remark as ‘NIL’ or ‘Not Applicable’ or ‘Not known’ in the columns and not to leave the particulars blank. (vii) Filing of affidavit with blanks will be directly hit by Section 125A(i) of the RP Act However, as the nomination paper itself is rejected by the Returning Officer, we find no reason why the candidate must be again penalized for the same act by prosecuting him/her. 28) The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40768 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 1 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 121 OF 2008 Resurgence India …. Petitioner (s) Versus Election Commission of India & Anr. …. Respondent(s) 2 J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam, CJI. 1) This writ petition, under Article 32 of … Continue reading
“Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme= the petitioners claimed that they took part in the freedom movement and were, therefore, entitled to the benefits which the Government has announced with the proclamation of the “Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme”. = In the present case, it is stated at the cost of the repetition that apart from the affidavits of other freedom fighters, no other document is produced. 24. We, thus, allow these appeals and set aside the orders of the High Court and dismiss the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents. No costs.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40741 [REPORTABLE] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 7899-7901/2013 (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) Nos.26441-26443 of 2012) State of Maharashtra & Ors. ……….Appellants Vs. Namdeo etc.etc. ………Respondents J U D G M E N T A.K.SIKRI,J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The three respondents herein were the … Continue reading
Death certificate -Where funeral was conducted – that local authority can also issue a death certificate = refusing to register the death of his wife, Mrs.Pankajam in Chennai, as per the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and consequently, sought for a direction to the respondents to issue the death certificate of late Mrs.Pankajam.= Rule 7 of the said Rules deals with notification and form of Certificate under section 10 and it reads as follows: ” (1) The certificate as to the cause of death required under sub-section (3) of section 10 shall be issued in Form No.5 or 5-A and the Registrar shall, after making necessary entries in the Register of Births and deaths, forward all such certificates to the Chief Registrar or the Officer specified by him in this behalf by the 10th of the month immediately following the month to which the certificate relates. (2) Any person who performs the funeral ceremonies of a person dying in a local area within the jurisdiction of a municipality, panchayat or other local authority or any other area, shall whenever required furnish to the Registrar such information as he possesses regarding the particulars required for registration”= The words “and shall also” take steps to inform himself employed in Section 7(2) of the Act, has to be read disjunctively and not conjunctively. Whenever, an intimation is given by the persons authorised under Sections 8 and 9 or Rule 6 of the Rules made thereunder, the Registrar has to enter the particulars in the register maintained for the purpose and if any information is received by the Registrar, either through the abovesaid persons or others, he may either orally or in writing, require any person to furnish any particulars, within his knowledge in connection with the Birth or Death in the locality, within which, such person resides and after ascertaining the correctness of the particulars furnished, register the same under the Act.- In view of the above, the contention that the respondents have no statutory duty to register the death of the petitioner’s wife, within the State of Tamil Nadu, as the death had occurred in a moving train between New Delhi and Kanpur, is untenable. 39. In the light of the above discussion and following the judgments stated supra and of the factual admission on the part of the respondents in the counter affidavit the dead body of the petitioner’s wife had been brought to Chennai and cremated within the jurisdiction of the first respondent, the impugned communications are set aside and there shall be a direction to the respondents to register the death of the petitioner’s wife to issue the death certificate of late Mrs.Pankajam, wife of the petitioner, after obtaining a declaration from him for registration, to the effect that the particulars sought to be registered are true and correct and that the particulars have not been registered anywhere else in India and also that the same does not run in conflict with particulars registered by any other authority outside India. 40. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/qrydisp.aspx?filename=38256 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.12.2010 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.No.18187 of 2010 M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 N.Vedantam … Petitioner vs 1. The Executive Officer, Town Panchayat, Perungalathur, Chennai 600 063. 2. The Director, Directorate of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, 359, Anna Salai, Chennai-6. … … Continue reading
