0

‘Equality Cannot Be Claimed In Illegality, Cannot Be Enforced By A Citizen Or Court In A Negative Manner’: Rajasthan High Court

Blog, blog

Case Title: Shivam Sharma v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & 3 Ors
Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2346/2015  
Decided on: 17/05/2023
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Facts of the case:

The petitioner submitted an application for participation in the selection process for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer–I (Electrical) in pursuance to advertised posts. However, he was not appointed on the post on the ground that he did not provide Special TSP Certificate as per circular dated September 9, 2013 issued by Rajasthan Government.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents were not having any authority to withhold the appointment of the petitioner on the technical reason that the Special TSP Certificate was not produced by him at the time of submitting the Application Form as no such condition was mentioned in Clause 10 of the Advertisement that the candidate must possess Special TSP Certificate at the time of submission of the Application Form.

It was further submitted that there were several candidates – names of two were specifically mentioned, who were also not having the requisite Certificate and even then their candidature was considered and they were given appointment.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as per the Circular dated September 09, 2013, the petitioner was supposed to furnish Special TSP Certificate at the time of furnishing the Application Form. It was further contended that the other two candidates have not been impleaded as party respondents.

The court noted that the circular dated September 09, 2013 indicates that the candidates seeking appointment in TSP Area are required to possess Special Bonafide Resident Certificate of TSP Area and a format of such Special Bonafide has been attached to the Circular.

It further observed that as per Clause 10(vi) and (xii) of the said advertisement, the candidates must possess the Certificate of TSP, if he/she belongs to TSP Area and such TSP Certificate must be issued by the Competent Authority if such candidates are bonafide residents of any one of the notified TSP Areas of Rajasthan.

The Court relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in R. Muthukumar & Ors v. The Chairman And Managing Director TANGEDCO & Ors 2022 SCC Online SCC Online SC 151; Basawaraj and Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 and The State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati 2019 SCC Online SC 1207 in which it was held that no negative equality can be claimed as a matter of right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Judgement:

Thus, the court held that the petitioner cannot claim negative parity with the other two candidates. It also said that the petitioner is trying to take benefit of the example of similarly situated persons without impleading them as party to the writ petition.

“The petitioner has failed to produce the requisite Special TSP Certificate at the time of verification of documents. In the absence of this Certificate, it cannot be said that the action of respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner is in any manner vitiated,” said the court.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said it is well settled proposition of law that no negative equality can be claimed as a matter of right under Article 14 of Constitution of India.

 

“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: Mahima Saini

click to view a judgement

 

 

0

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Former RPF Constable’s Plea Against Termination, Says No Cause Of Action In Rajasthan

Blog, blog ,

Case Title: Norat Rana v. Union of India & 2 Ors.
Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13031/2017
Decided on: 26/04/2023
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Facts of the case:

The petitioner was terminated from the post of Constable under Rule 57.3 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (RPF Rules 1987) while on probation period vide impugned order dated November 15, 2016, passed by Senior Commanding Officer, 12th BN, Railway Protection Special Force, Thakurli (Maharashtra).

The petitioner approached the appellate authority challenging the impugned order which was rejected by the DIG/R&T, Railway Board, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi vide communication dated April 27, 2017. Thus, the petitioner assailed both the orders before the High Court by way of the present writ petition.

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been discharged without holding a proper inquiry and without giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his discharge. However, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has got alternative statutory remedy under Rule 219 of RPF Rules 1987 to file Revision Petition before the Revisional Authority.

It was further submitted that the impugned orders were passed by the authorities in Maharashtra and no cause of action or part cause of action has arisen in Rajasthan, hence the Rajasthan High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and entertain the present writ petition.

It was argued that an employee on probation period does not have right to continue the job and his services can be terminated during the period of probation.

“When the Appellate Authority is of the view that appeal is not maintainable, then how Revision Petition is maintainable when the petitioner has not been treated as an enrolled member of the Force. In view of the above discussion, this court finds no force in the argument of the counsel for respondent that this writ petition is not maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of filing Revision Petition under Rule 219 of RPF Rules 1987,” said the court.

Judgement:

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Constable of Railway Protection Force against his termination order.

The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said the petitioner responded to notice from Thakurli (Maharashtra) and the disciplinary inquiry was conducted against him at Thakurli and finally the impugned order was also passed and served upon him at Thakurli.

However, the court dismissed the petition on the question of territorial jurisdiction and granted liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the appropriate forum as may be available to him under the law.

 

“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: Mahima Saini

click to view a judgement

 

0

Madras High Court Directs Authorities To Exempt Vehicle Tax, GST For Car Purchased By Visually Challenged Person.

Blog, blog , , ,

Case Title:  Carunia Seelavathi          … Petitioner                                  
                                              Versus

      Department of Transport State of Tamil Nadu.       … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Pronounced On 26.06.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.T. ASHA.

Citation: W.P.(MD) Nos.12955 and 13043 of 2023cand W.M.P.(MD) No.11040 of 2023 W.P.(MD) No.12955 of 2023.

Introduction:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned email communication dated 04.05.2023 vide his proceedings in registration application MHI- 290423185541-6629 sent by the 4th respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the respondent No.1 to extent the GST, Road Tax, Tool Tax and registration concession to the petitioner for purchasing a four wheeler (TATA NEXON XECar (Petrol) Derik Motors Private Limited ) in the light of the orders passed by the Honble Court of Chief Commissioner for persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) in Case No.12149/1141/2020 dated 01.12.2020. The relief is sought for on the basis of the order passed by the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) New Delhi in Case No.12149/1141/2020 dated 01.12.2020 and the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.20511 of 2021 dated 22.12.2021.

Facts:

The petitioner, who is visually handicapped and who holds the unique disability identity card showing that she is a person with 100% physical impairment, has planned to purchase a car for her own use. She is dependent on a third person for her travels. Considering the fact that she is a lady and visually challenged, travelling in the taxies and autos in the present scenario is a scary choice for the petitioner. Therefore, she would try to take advantage of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.3352, Home (Transport-T) Department, dated 29.12.1976, which grants exemptions from payment of tax leviable under the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 for the motor vehicles designed or adapted for the use of disabled persons. She has also relied upon the aforementioned case of the Court of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) as also the order of this Court in W.P.(MD) No.20511 of 2021 dated 22.12.2021. However, her request has been rejected by the authorities by stating that the vehicle of the petitioner would not undergo any change in its form and it cannot be considered as a adapted vehicle, which is the basis of the exemption. Like wise, the request for exemption of GST has been rejected with the one line order that the scheme is only for ortho/locomotory applicants.

Issue:

  • Whether the petitioner is suffering from any disability?

Legal Analysis:

The petitioner is a person suffering from a disability has not been denied by the respondents. In the order of the Court of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) New Delhi, the Commissioner was dealing with cases of various kinds of disabilities, like locomotory, hearing impairment, visually handicapped etc. The Commission has held that a personsuffering from complete blindness can never drive the vehicle by himself/herself, which is also the case of hearing impairment. The Commission went on to hold that the person who is visually challenged also belongs to the PwD category (Person with Disability) and the Commission had recommended that the Department of Heavy Industries, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises and Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Union of India should make amendments to their rules to give concession with reference to GST, Road Tax, Toll Tax etc to all these persons. This recommendation of the Commission has been followed by the learned Judge of this Court in the order passed in W.P.(MD) No.20511 of 2021, wherein the learned Judge has relied upon this recommendation and directed the respondents to process the applications at the earliest. This Court on an earlier occasion was dealing with the cases of exemption in respect of the adapted vehicle adapted for the use of a physically challenged person. Relying upon Sections 2(1) and 52(1) of the Act, this Court had directed that the petitioner is entitled to the concession.

Judgement:

Considering the recommendation of the Commission, which is a Commission specifically established for the disabled and taking into consideration the fact that today the visually challenged persons are having more opportunities of employment even in the Government sector and their commuting to the place of work becomes challenging, this Court is of the opinion that the exemption has to be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed. The authority concerned shall ensure that necessary orders exempting the petitioner from the motor vehicle’s tax as well as the GST are passed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a undertaking letter by the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Conclusion:

Justice PT Asha of the Madurai bench took note of the recommendations made by the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to Department of Heavy Industries, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises and Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance for amendments to their rules to give concession with reference to GST, Road Tax, Toll Tax etc to the visually challenged persons.

“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.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Madras High Court grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Dainik Bhaskar Editor who Spread Fake news on attacks of Migrant workers.

blog, Blog , , ,

Case Title:  Prasoon Mishra               … Petitioner                                  
                                              Versus

                  The State of Tamil Nadu                   … Respondents

Date of Decision:  Pronounced On 27.06.2023.

Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA.                                                     

Citation: Crl.O.P.Nos.13400 & 11077 of 2023.

Introduction:

This case is related to Cyber Crime Domain, so the Inspector of Police,T 11, Tirunindravur Police Station transferred the case to Central Crime Branch, Avadi, based on the instructions of the Commissioner of Police, Avadi, Commissionerate, Avadi vide inRc.No.54/8291/Crime-1 (1) / APC/ 2023, dated 09.03.2023. After registration of this case from the Station concerned, assigned a new Crime No.11 of 2023, u/s.153(A) (1), 505(1) (b) and 505(2) IPC in CCB, Avadi on 10.03.2023, pending arrest in both the cases, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 

Facts:

On 03.03.2023 at 11.30 hrs, one Kannagi, the Special Sub Inspector of Police of Tiruppur North Police Station gave a written complaint stating that a false news was posted in the Twitter page of “Dainik Bhaskar” in Hindi and its English translated form with the help of Google was “BIHARI LABOURS IN TAMIL NADU ARE BEING PUNISHED BY THE TALIBAN FOR SPEAKING HINDI. HINDI SPEAKING PEOPLE ARE NOW BEING KILLED IN THE DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF WAGES THE YOUTH OF JAMUI TOLD -12 LABOURERS WERE HANGED MORE THAN 15 WERE MURDERED”. It contained the following four false news:-
(i) Bihari Laboureres in Tamilnadu are being punished by Taliban for speaking Hindi. 
(ii) Hindi speaking people are now being killed in the dispute arising
out of wages.
(iii) 12 Labourers were hanged, and
(iv) More than 15 were murdered.

Issue:

  • Whether the Petitioner had created panic in thepublic and caused hazard and annoyance to public tranquility?

Legal Analysis:

The petitioner in the case on hand claims to be an Editor of a reputed publication which is in existence from the year 1958 and the publication group to which he belongs has a wide circulation throughout four States in North India. The Media is considered to be the fourth pillar of the democracy as it carries with such a huge power and responsibility as public repose their trust and confidence in the Media. The Media and Press need to adopt their professional ethics and take care of public interest instead of concentrating on sensational news alone for promoting their own commercial interest. Such a bounden duty cannot be shirked by them under the guise of freedom of speech. Such being the expectation of the democratic system, it is painful to note that the petitioner, without verifying or exercising due diligence to find out the veracity of the news and without understanding the sensitivity, merely in order to sensitize the public, had published a fake news. This Court strongly deprecates the act of the petitioner in publishing such a sensitive news, without verifying the correctness of the same. However, taking into consideration the unconditional apology rendered by the petitioner and the undertaking made on his behalf that he would publish a Corrigendum in the homepage itself that the news published by him is a fake one and that he would be more vigilant not to indulge into any such activities in future, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

Judgement:

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready,
(i) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) (in respect of Crl.O.P.No.13400/2023)
(ii) before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) (in respect of Crl.O.P.No.11077/2023) with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:
[a] The sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.
[b]The petitioner shall report before the Inspector of Police, (Conventional Crime) Central Central Crime Branch, Avadi Police Commissionerate, Avadi, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one week, thereafter before the Inspector of Police, Tiruppur North Police Station, Tiruppur District, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one week.
[c] The petitioner shall also publish a Corrigendum in the first page/homepage in all the publications contending that they had published a fake news, without verifying the truth and veracity of the same and nobody should follow and post the same and tendering unconditional apology to this court and the people of Tamil Nadu.
[d] The petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation ortrial.
[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.
Post the matter after four weeks under the caption “for reporting compliance”.

Conclusion:

Considering this undertaking, the court granted him anticipatory bail on the condition that he shall execute two bonds for a sum of 25000 rupees with sureties and report before the Inspector of Police, (Conventional Crime) Central Central Crime Branch, Avadi Police Commissionerate, Avadi for a period of one week and thereafter before the Tiruppur Police Station. The court also directed that Mishra shall not abscond during the investigation and if So, a fresh FIR could be registered.

“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.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

0

Allahabad High Court states that an anticipatory bail plea cannot be rejected on the grounds that a chargesheet has been filed, or that the court took notice of the offense.

Blog

Title: Dr. Kartikeya Sharma And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another
Dated on: 9th May, 2023

CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. – 3107 of 2023

CORAM:Hon’ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

Introduction.

An anticipatory bail application made by an accused person can never be denied on the grounds that a charge sheet has since been filed in the case or that the court in question has recognised the offence, according to a recent ruling by the Allahabad High Court.

Analysis.

Even if the chargesheet is filed and the court takes cognizance against the accused, who is exempt from arrest during the course of the investigation due to a court order, anticipatory bail granted to him, or the Investigating Officer serving him with a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., the anticipatory bail application made by the accused is still legally maintainable.

The court noted that the current applicants were not proclaimed offenders at the time they applied for anticipatory bail before the HC, so the restriction imposed by the Supreme Court prohibiting it from considering an anticipatory bail application from a proclaimed offender is not applicable in the current case.

The Court further noted that it was appropriate to grant them pre-arrest bail because the alleged offences are punishable by a maximum sentence of seven years in prison, the applicants have cooperated throughout the investigation, and there is no evidence on file to suggest otherwise.

“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- Varada Hawaldar

click to view judgement#

1 … 357 358 359 360 361 … 1,699