Blog - Page 95 of 1824

2 Feb

The High Court erred in analysing the evidence and restoring the application of the writ petition: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #evidence, #judgment, #law, #SupremeCourt, #writpetiton

Case title: J.N Puri Vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

Case no.: SLP(Civil.) No(s). 24776 of 2020

Decided on: 29.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current appeal stems from a decision by the high court’s divisional bench on the issue of the respondents’ acquisition of his land in 1987. The appellant claims that he is still in possession of the land. The writ petition was dismissed for a lack of prosecution.

The appellant filed an application for the restoration of the writ petition. It appears that the aforementioned restoration application was not pursued for an extended period of time, prompting the appellant to file yet another Writ Petition in 1999, this time requesting that the restoration application be pursued and an appropriate order issued. The high court has once again denied the restoration petition.

However, after receiving information from the Registry of the High Court of Uttarakhand under the RTI Act that the appellant’s writ petition had been dismissed on default on February 26, 1992, the appellant filed a recalling and restoration application, along with an application seeking condonation for the delay in filing the above recalling application, which was dismissed by the High Court.

Furthermore, a review application was filed against the above order, which was also dismissed.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

According to the counsel for the appellant, the application for restoration was filed on March 23, 1992, which is one month after the writ petition for non-prosecution was dismissed.

They drew the Court’s attention to paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh/Uttarakhand, which admits the factum of filing the application dated March 23, 1992, seeking restoration to its original number.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court held that the High Court of Uttarakhand erred in stating that the application for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated February 26, 1992, was filed seven years later after taking into account all of the available evidence.

According to the State of Uttar Pradesh’s counter-affidavit, paragraph 5, the restoration application was submitted within a month. No one ever gave the application a fair hearing.

The case has been brought back before the High Court of Uttarakhand, which will restore the appellant’s writ petition and expeditiously decide the case on its merits after providing all parties with a chance to be heard.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read Judgement

2 Feb

CSIR’s Appeal Dismissed and Overturns P&H HC’s judgement on Promotion Reversal of Two Employees by: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog #CSIR, #promotion, #SupremCourt

Case Title: Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) v. J.K. Prashar & Ors.

Case No: SLP(Civil) No(s). 8310-8311 of 2020

Decided on: 29^th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Facts of the Case

The Director General of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has filed an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court had overturned the promotion of two employees to the position of Under Secretary, citing a violation of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Administrative Services (Recruitment & Promotion) Rules, 1982 (Statutory rules). CSIR contested the High Court’s decision, asserting that one of the employees lacked eligibility for the Under Secretary promotion as they had never independently performed the duties of a Section Officer. CSIR supported its claim with certificates indicating that the two employees were granted one year’s experience as Section Officers for their promotion to the Under Secretary position.

Issue

The key issue revolves around the eligibility criteria for the promotion of two employees to the position of Under Secretary at the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), with the Director General challenging the High Court’s decision based on the alleged violation of statutory rules.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision, which had annulled the promotion granted by CSIR to its two employees. Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta asserted that there were no obstacles for the promotion of respondent No.1 to the position of Under Secretary under the statutory rules. The court upheld the High Court’s reversal of the appellant’s action in denying promotion to respondent No. 1. The justices noted that the certificates indicated the utilization of their services as Section Officers on attachment, without any formal appointment to the position. Additionally, the court addressed the appellant’s argument that promotion to the post of Under Secretary should be based on merit, pointing out that the promotion of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 was also contested by the High Court. The Supreme Court, agreeing with the High Court, concluded that there were no impediments for the promotion to the post of Under Secretary under the statutory rules. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

2 Feb

Supreme Court dismisses a defamation case against the newspaper owner for a report against an advocate, citing the publication as being done in good faith.

Prime Legal

Blog #defamation, #SupremeCourt

Case Title: Sanjay Upadhya v. Anand Dubey

Case No: SLP(Crl.) No(s). 3180 of 2020

Decided on: 29^th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Facts of the Case

A defamation case was lodged against the proprietor of the ‘Sunday Blast’ daily newspaper situated in Madhya Pradesh. The case stemmed from a 2013 article titled “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” (Advocate files false case against Pan Masala trader). Despite the initial dismissal of the complaint by the Judicial Magistrate, the Sessions Court reinstated it. The Madhya Pradesh High Court subsequently affirmed the reinstatement, leading the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue

The central issue in this case pertains to a defamation complaint against the owner of the ‘Sunday Blast’ newspaper, focusing on an article titled “Advocate ne pan masala vyavasayi par karaya jhuta mamla darj” (Advocate files false case against Pan Masala trader) published in 2013.

Legal Provision

According to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression. This implies that all citizens have the right to express their views and opinions freely.

According Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a criminal defamation case against a newspaper owner related to an article about an advocate. The court upheld the Magistrate’s decision, which cited the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, concurring with the Magistrate, affirmed that the news article was published in good faith, exercising the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Magistrate’s decision was neither illegal nor unjustified, and there is no need for intervention by the Sessions Court or the High Court. Consequently, all proceedings based on the complaint under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code were quashed against the accused appellant.

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

1 Feb

Supreme Court Issues New Guidelines and Principles for Environmental Bodies

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #CEC, #environment, #Guidelines, #law, #SupremeCourt

Case title: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union Of India And Ors.

Case no.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995

Decided on: 31.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Central Empowered Committee’s institutionalisation and reconstitution are the subject of the current writ petition. On May 9, 2002, this Court issued an order mandating the CEC’s formation. The CEC functioned as a body ad hoc.

In accordance with Section 3(3) of the Environment (Protection) Act of 1986, the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change subsequently published a Notification on September 5, 2023, creating the CEC as an ongoing entity.

The court stated that the CEC would continue to operate in accordance with any orders and directives that it may issue from time to time, even as it approved the Notification.

In Part I of the ruling in this case, the court described the CEC’s establishment, purpose, and institutionalisation. The court endeavoured to formulate new principles in Part II for the efficient oversight of diverse entities, establishments, and authorities instituted to safeguard our woodlands, fauna, surroundings, and ecosystem.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court directed the CEC to take the necessary actions to advance institutional accountability, efficiency, and transparency in its operations:

Guidelines for its operations and internal meetings will be developed by the CEC. Operating procedures outlining the responsibilities of the CEC Secretary and its members must be developed by the CEC.
The CEC must create guidelines for public meetings, publish agendas on its website in advance, maintain meeting minutes, and establish rules for notice to parties.
The CEC will create guidelines for site visits and may conduct public hearings with affected parties.
The CEC will establish guidelines for setting time limits for site visits and report preparation, as well as the method of preparation.
The court ordered that these guidelines/regulations be easily accessible to all. They will be made available through the CEC’s official website.

In order to effectively oversee the numerous organisations, committees, and authorities set up to safeguard our forests, wildlife, ecosystem, and environment, the court issued some guidelines. The following institutional characteristics must be present in the organisations, authorities, regulators, and executive offices charged with environmental duties:

Clarify the composition, qualifications, tenure, appointment, and removal procedures for these authorities. Furthermore, appointments must be made on a regular basis to ensure continuity, and these bodies must be staffed with individuals who possess the necessary knowledge, technical expertise, and specialisation to function efficiently.
Authorities and bodies require adequate funding and clear financial transparency.
Clearly define the mandate and roles of each authority and body to avoid overlap and duplication of work. Establish a method for constructive coordination among institutions.
It is imperative for authorities and bodies to publish rules, regulations, and guidelines on their website, preferably in regional languages. In place of office memos, the authority or body may issue comprehensive guidelines in a standardised format and notify those in place of having the authority to create rules or regulations.
These bodies must establish detailed rules and regulations, as well as procedures for granting permissions, consents, and approvals.
The bodies and authorities are required to announce procedures for public hearings, the decision-making process, the right of appeal prescription, and deadlines.
By outlining the precise division of tasks and responsibilities among their officers, these bodies must specify the accountability mechanism.
The way these authorities operate needs to be frequently and methodically audited

The court concluded by saying that it is the responsibility of constitutional courts to guarantee that these environmental bodies have the resources and strong infrastructure necessary to carry out their duties. The constitutional courts will supervise these organisations’ operations, making sure that the ecology and environment are not only preserved but also improved.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

1 Feb

SC mandates further investigation before permitting Birla to resume mining near Chittorgarh fort

Prime Legal

Uncategorized

Title: BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

V BHANWAR SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: S.L.P.(C) No. 21211 of 2012

Dated on: 13 .1.2024

Corum: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA and JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

Facts of the case

The present case is about the Chittorgarh fort of Rajasthan one of the UNESCO recognised world heritage site which became a matter of legal battel between Birla corporation and public interest litigants led by Bhanwar Singh and others. The dispute arose over the said impact on the fort’s structural stability. In response to the petitioners concern the state of Rajasthan annulled mining lease within 10KM radius from the fort region. The matter was later appeared before the SC of India which sought a conclusion.

Petitioners’ Arguments

The contention of the petitioner is that Birla co sets up a limestone mine at the distance of 4.5 Km away from the fort. The petitioners challenged that challenged HC verdict and contended that mining activities did not cause any discrepancy and harm to the walls of the fort and also raised questions about the annuity of mining rights by the HC within 10Km radius. Additionally, the petitioners were also ordered to pay a compensation of 5 crore for which they claimed disproportionate.

Respondents Arguments

Bhawar Singh the respondents in the appeal primarily filed a PIL in the HC raising concern over impact of blasting operation by Birla related to the lime stone production. They contended that such activities caused cracks and damages to the structure of such national significance and requested for protection for the fort and for the court to intervene and provide guidelines to prevent mining in the region.

Court Analysis

The Hon’ble SC of India upon hearing arguments from the council’s recognized the depth of the situation and ordered for a meticulous examination of the case. Expert reports from agencies such as the Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee (CBRI), the Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR), and the Indian Bureau of Mines, Mining Research Cell were evaluated. The court determined that blasting operations beyond a radius of five km from the fort wall were safe and did not harm the historical monument. Also, acknowledging the tremendous improvements in technology, the court ordered a new study to be done by a multidisciplinary team of specialists from the Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines) at Dhanbad. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of electronic blasting devices, which were marketed as potentially safter method for the environment that reduces vibration. This reflected the courts interest in ensuring the most effective mining practices. The court not satisfied with the said reports has extended the investigation further and order various other declaration to arrive at a safe conclusion and posted for further hearing to July 2024.

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

click here to view judgment

1 … 93 94 95 96 97 … 1,824