0

“Judicial Verdict Upholding Rigorous Standards: Act for Recognizing Universities Challenged, Court Stresses Need for Established Institutions and Rejects Petitioners’ Claims.”

Title: Mahendran Kumar Sober and ORS. Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: WPS No. 2724 of 2013

Coram: HON’BLE Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

Decided on: 10-11-2023.

 

Introduction:

The case involves two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to annul the order dated July 27, 2013, issued by the Development Commissioner, CG, Raipur. The order pertains to appointments on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Rural Engineering Services. The petitioners are urging the court to set aside this order and instruct the respondent authorities to revise the merit list by including experience marks. Subsequently, they seek the fulfillment of vacancies in accordance with the recruitment rules.               

Facts:

The case involves applicants responding to an advertisement by the Department of Rural Engineering Services, CG, Raipur, for positions including Sub Engineer (Civil). The petitioners, possessing the required qualifications and experience, applied for the positions. The merit list, initially including their names, did not assign experience marks against the advertised conditions. Subsequently, an order on July 27, 2013, by the Development Commissioner, CG, Raipur, omitted the petitioners’ names. The petitioners argue that the recruitment process violated constitutional articles, as eligibility criteria were allegedly changed, and transparency was lacking.

On the respondents’ side, it’s contended that the petitioners were deemed ineligible due to obtaining their degrees from JRN Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University through distance education. The authorities argued that this mode of education was not recognized for technical posts, and an order dated November 7, 2013, supported this decision. The respondents also raised concerns about the university’s validity, citing restrictions on distance education outside the state of Rajasthan.

Judgement analysis:

The judgment concludes that the impugned Act, which allows the notification of a university based on a proposal without actual establishment and legislative backing, does not align with regulations. It argues that such universities, lacking infrastructural facilities and qualified teachers, are unlikely to attract private capital or provide quality education. The court emphasizes the need for established institutions offering high-quality education rather than universities without teaching facilities.

The court further notes that the respondent-state did not recognize respondent No.4/University as a deemed university, leading to the disqualification of the petitioners for the Sub Engineer (Civil) post. It supports this decision based on legal principles and previous judgments. The court dismisses the writ petitions, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners and upholding the decision of the respondent authorities.

“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: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

0

Preserving Liberty: Court Strikes Down Non-Bailable Warrants, Emphasizing Fundamental Rights and Procedural Fairness

Title: M/s Yoon Automobiles Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs M/s Bhilai Engineering Corporation Limited

Citation: CRMP No. 2584 of 2023

Coram: Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Decided on: 10-11-23.

 

Introduction:

The case involves a group of individuals (petitioners) against whom non-bailable warrants have been issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class in Durg. The charges stem from complaint cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), indicating a legal action related to dishonor of negotiable instruments such as checks. The issuance of non-bailable warrants suggests the seriousness of the legal proceedings against the petitioners in these cases.

Facts:

The case involves complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the petitioners face non-bailable warrants issued by the trial court. The complaints were filed for dishonor of cheques amounting to Rs. 25,00,000 each, issued by the petitioners in favor of the complainant. The petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were filed seeking permission to present defense evidence, especially for those petitioners who are not directors of the company mentioned in the cases.

During the proceedings, applications under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. were submitted, seeking an adjournment. However, the trial court rejected these applications, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioners. In response, the petitions challenging these orders were filed.

The counsel for the petitioners argues that, according to the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 10 SCC 51, non-bailable warrants should not be issued at the first instance in summon cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Instead, the court should issue notices and bailable warrants before resorting to non-bailable warrants, especially when the accused or their counsel are present before the court. The petitioners seek relief based on these legal arguments.

Judgement analysis:

The judgment, considering the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the procedural aspects, deems the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioners as legally unsustainable. It emphasizes that the liberty of individuals, a fundamental and inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be curtailed arbitrarily.

The court notes that the learned Trial Court did not provide any rationale for issuing non-bailable warrants when the counsel for the petitioners was present, and applications under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. were submitted. Consequently, the court sets aside the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class issued on November 3, 2023. It allows the applications under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., directing the petitioners to appear before the Court below on the next date of the hearing. All the petitions are thereby disposed of.

“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: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

0

If Document Has Not Been Provided Either By The Inquiry Officer Or By The Disciplinary Authority Failure Will Fall On The Disciplinary Committee: Patna High Court

Citation: CWJC No.1118 of 2020

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman

Decided On: 02-11-2023

Introduction:

The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order contained in Memo No.3839 dated 30.04.2019 passed by respondent, by which minor punishment has been inflicted upon the petitioner relating to (i) Censor and (ii) reduction to the lowest stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years without cumulative effect. The further prayer made in the present writ petition is also for setting aside the appellate order contained in Memo No.3405 dated 19.09.2019 issued by respondent by which the original punishment order dated 30.04.2019 has been affirmed.

Facts:

The petitioner was appointed as Co-operative Extension Officer and submitted his joining on 08.11.1989 being his first posting at Motihari. During the relevant period in the year 2010 he was posted as Block Development Officer and his services was deputed to the Rural Development Department. when he was posted at Naubatpur then a show-cause notice was issued vide letter No.8119 dated 23.09.2016 by respondent and he was directed to file a show cause against the charges framed by the District Magistrate. In compliance of the said letter, the petitioner has filed his show cause on 03.10.2016 denying the charges and a categorical pleading has been taken by him that inquiry was conducted by District Statistics Officer behind his back and he has denied all the charges alleged against him.

The petitioner further submits that disciplinary authority has issued an order contained in Memo No.9338 dated 09.11.2016, by which it was decided to conduct the disciplinary proceeding against him under the CCA Rules, 2005. It was categorical direction of the disciplinary authority that inquiry officer has to conduct the inquiry and submit a report under Rule 17(23) of the C.C.A. Rules, 2005. Petitioner further submits that in the light of the said Memo No.9338 dated 09.11.2016, the proceeding has to be initiated in accordance with law as laid down in the C.C.A. Rules, 2005, but in complete violation of the said Rule punishment order was passed and communicated to him vide Memo No.3839 dated 30.04.2019.

Rules, 2005, which is subject to the provisions of Rule 18(3) of the C.C.A. Rules, 2005, then in that case all procedure applicable to the major penalty has to be followed. But here in the present case no such procedure has been followed and, hence, the entire departmental proceeding as well as its finding are bad-in-law. Counsel of the State He submits that there is a categorical finding of the disciplinary authority that the delinquent has accepted that irregularity has taken place in the distribution of diesel. But he has thrown responsibility on the deficiency of Supervisor and requested that the Panchayat Secretary should be held guilty.

Counsel also submits that the delinquent had also tried to delay this matter on the ground of non-production of the demanded documents, but the said documents/evidences can be obtained under R.T.I. immediately and due to these two reasons the disciplinary authority holds the charges to be true and correct and had imposed punishment.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

If document has not been provided either by the inquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority even upon repeated demand, in that case the delinquent is supposed to obtain under R.T.I. is also not correct position of law. The C.C.A. Rules, 2005 is very clear on this point that it is the duty of the disciplinary authority to provide all the documents, which is going to be proved or which is the base of the charge to the delinquent as per Rule 17(3) of C.C.A. Rules, 2005. In absence of those documents even after repeated demand, the fault shall be of the disciplinary authority or inquiry officer. Hence the court decided that the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have to be set aside.

“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- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

0

High Court of Madars regarding the writ petition on selection process of the Assistant surgeon (general).

High Court of Madaras regarding the writ petition on selection process of the Assistant surgeon (general).

Title : Dr.D.Hariharan v. The Union of India

Case No. : W.P.No.25827 of 2023

CORAM : THE HON’BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Decided on : 16.11.2023.

Introduction

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Declaration declaring G.O. (Ms).No.278, dated 17.08.2023 issued by the second respondent and the consequential letter bearing Ref No.081353/ME2/1/2023, dated 23.08.2023, issued by the 3rd respondent as illegitimate, illegal and ultra vires the Constitution of India.

Fact of the Case

On 11.10.2022, the Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB), Government of Tamil Nadu, issued Notification No.11/MRB/2022, in and by which, it invited applications for direct recruitment to 1021 vacancies in the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) in the scale of pay of Rs.56,100-1,77,500. The selection was by a process of written examination consisting of two papers, namely, Tamil Language Test and the Main Paper. All the writ petitioners had applied and participated in the selection process. The examination was conducted on 25.04.2023. On 23.06.2023, the Tamil Eligibility Test Result and the Final Answer Keys were released by the MRB. The objections to the key answers were also considered and the keys are finalised.

Judgment and Analysis

Court  do not find any error in the Government Order in G.O. (Ms).No.278, dated 17.08.2023 and it is only the interpretation given by the officials in the consequential order impugned in the Writ Petition, dated 23.08.2023 so as to construe the Government Order as excluding the Postgraduate on the ground that it is part of the training period is not in order. Besides, this incentive should doubly count in public interest also as these candidates are already post-graduates.

The Post-Graduate students in Government Hospitals will also be eligible for the incentive marks and consequently, quash the impugned letter bearing reference No.081353 / ME2 / 1 / 2023, dated 23.08.2023.

“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 Nimisha Sunny

 

0

“Legal Battle Unfolds: Roshanara Club Seeks Possession, Court Directs DDA to Devise Club Management Scheme”

Title: SH. MANISH AGGARWAL vs. THE ESTATE ORRICER & ORS

Citation: W.P.(C) 14739/2023

Coram: HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

Decided on: 9-11-23

Introduction:

In this case, the petitioner has approached the court seeking various reliefs. The petition challenges the constitutional validity of Section 3 of The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971. It also disputes the sealing and locking of Respondent No. 4 Club’s premises on September 29, 2023, based on an order from September 27, 2023, alleging it to be unconstitutional and violative of fundamental and statutory rights. Additionally, the petitioner seeks to declare the sealing as void ab initio, citing contravention of rule 7 of the mentioned Act. The petition further calls for the quashing of a Draft Policy to run the club, asserting that it goes against the statement made by the Additional Solicitor General in a previous order. The petitioner requests the court to grant any other necessary relief deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

Facts:

The case involves Roshanara Club Limited (RCL), established in 1922, operating on land allotted under lease deeds by the Secretary of State for India and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). The extended lease lapsed on December 31, 2017. RCL sought renewal, but after a series of communications, an eviction notice was issued on April 12, 2023. RCL filed a writ petition challenging the eviction notice with specific reliefs. The learned Single Judge, while noting the challenge to the eviction notice was not maintainable, issued an interim direction restraining coercive action against RCL solely based on the expired lease. The order allowed RCL to pursue statutory remedies against the eviction notice. The DDA appealed, and an order on June 2, 2023, directed the Principal District Judge to decide the appeal without being influenced by the High Court’s order. The case is scheduled for further proceedings on September 13, 2023.

Judgement analysis:

In the given case, the Division Bench of the Court did not grant relief to Roshanara Club. Instead, it directed the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to devise a scheme for running the club and did not hand over possession to the ex-management of the club. Subsequently, a Special Leave to Appeal (SLP) was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, seeking restoration of possession to Roshanara Club, but the relief was not granted.

Following these events, a new petition was filed by certain club members. However, the court, considering that it is already dealing with the issue of running the club and that a related writ petition is pending, decided not to grant interim relief in the present petition. The court noted that the DDA is in the process of finalizing a scheme for the smooth running of the club, and accordingly, rejected the prayer for interim relief. The case is scheduled for further proceedings along with LPA No. 497/2023 on December 7, 2023.

“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: Gauri Joshi

Click here to view judgement

1 2 3 4 5 6 16