0

WRIT PETITION FILED FOR DELETION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES UNDER REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 AT ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT DISPOSED OF WITH DIRECTIONS

Blog , ,

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Indireddy Venu Gopal Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

WRIT PETITION No. 8983 of 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 13 MAY 2023

INTRODUCTION

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s representation for deletion of the subject properties from the prohibited list of Dappepalli Village, Lakkireddypalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District has not been considered by the 2nd respondent (The District Collector).

The main provisions followed in this petition is of Registration act, 1908 added through state amendment.

section 22A. Documents registration of which is opposed to public policy —

(1) The State Government may, by notification, in the official Gazette, declare that the registration of any document or class of documents is opposed to public policy.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the registering officer shall refuse to register any document to which a notification issued under sub-section (1) is applicable.

FACTS

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner purchased the part of the subject land through a registered sale deed dated 22.02.2016 for an extent of Acres 5.00 cents in Survey No.564 of the said village.

He purchased the other portion of the subject land through a registered sale deed dated 28.10.2009 for an extent of Acres 2.19 cents in Survey No.565 and Acre 1.00 cents in Survey No.566 of the said village and since he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

Petitioner approached the respondent authorities for mutation of his name in the revenue records. Then it came to light that the subject land is placed under the prohibited list under the head of dotted land.

Then petitioner made an online application. In pursuance of the same, the 4th respondent submitted a report to the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) dated 11.08.2018 recommending for deletion of the subject property from the prohibited list under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The 3rd respondent (The Revenue Divisional Officer) also submitted a report to the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) dated 22.02.2022 to consider the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, there is no progress in the matter.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that, the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) Committee would decide the issue basing upon the earlier reports submitted by the respondent Nos.3 (The Revenue Divisional Officer) and 4 (The Tahsildar) by following the due procedure.

JUDGEMENT

The court held that the 2nd respondent (The District Collector) Committee shall consider and pass appropriate orders in continuation of the reports submitted by the 4th (The Tahsildar) and 3rd (The Revenue Divisional Officer) respondents dated 11.08.2018 and 22.02.2022 as expeditiously as possible strictly in accordance with law preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of this order. Upon hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner and upon verification of the records and the subject land, the appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“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.”

0

CHALLENGING THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE’S ORDER: A VICTORY FOR CASTE VALIDITY RIGHTS

Blog , ,

INTRODUCTION

The High Court of Bombay: Nagpur Bench passed a judgement on 19 April 2023. In the case of DIVYA MUKESH CHAWDA Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT. MUMBAI AND OTHERS IN WRIT PETITION NO.6971/2022 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R. B. DEO and HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE VRUSHALI V. JOSHI the Court reviewed a case where a petitioner challenged the decision of the Scrutiny Committee to invalidate her claim of belonging to the Mochi Scheduled Caste. The petitioner’s claim was based on various documents and a genealogical tree provided to establish her caste identity. The Court carefully examined the evidence and ultimately ruled in favour of the petitioner, emphasizing the committee’s errors in disregarding the presented documents. This blog post will delve into the details of the case, highlighting the key arguments and the Court’s reasoning.

BACKGROUND

The petitioner, a student at Kapadia Gujarati Junior College in Amravati, sought a caste validity certificate to verify her claim as a member of the Mochi Scheduled Caste. After submitting the necessary documents, including validation certificates of her family members, the Vigilance Cell conducted an inquiry and confirmed the authenticity of the provided documents. However, the Scrutiny Committee issued a notice to the petitioner, demanding additional pre-constitution documents and questioning her relationship with one of the validation certificate holders, Shailesh Vallabh Chawada.

THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE’S DECISION

In its decision, the Scrutiny Committee contended that the petitioner failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish her caste identity as Mochi. They reasoned that the petitioner had not submitted any pre-constitution documents, and the committee referred to a judgment by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, which stated that the Mochi caste did not fall under the Scheduled Caste category.

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS

The petitioner, through her counsel, argued that the Scrutiny Committee erred in discarding the validity certificates of her family members. The counsel emphasized that the High Court’s judgment was irrelevant to the case. It was further asserted that the petitioner had submitted four validity certificates of her cousins, including one of her real cousin brothers, Shailesh Chawada, along with a genealogical tree proving their relationship.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Upon careful examination of the case, the Court noted that the documents submitted by the petitioner, which referred to her caste as Mochi, were not questioned for their authenticity. However, the committee rejected her claim based on the petitioner’s father’s statement that their family originally hailed from Gujarat. According to the committee, the Maharashtra law stipulated that only Mochis from specific districts were declared as Scheduled Caste.

The Court acknowledged that the burden of proving the claim lies with the petitioner, as per the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2000. Nevertheless, the Court found fault with the committee’s approach. The Vigilance Cell’s inquiry had not questioned the petitioner’s relationship with Shailesh, and the Court believed the petitioner should have been given notice to provide additional documentary evidence to establish this relationship.

The Court found merit in the petitioner’s case since her family had settled in Maharashtra well before independence. Notably, a pre-constitution entry in a school admission register referred to the petitioner’s grandfather, Velji Shamji Chawada, as Mochi. The Court held that the committee erred by applying the amended presidential order relevant to Gujarat, rather than considering the pre-constitution evidence from Maharashtra.

In light of these findings, the Court set aside the Scrutiny Committee’s order and granted the petitioner’s prayer for quashing the order and directing the committee to issue her a validity certificate for her caste, Mochi, within one month.

CONCLUSION

This judgment highlights the importance of a fair and meticulous examination of evidence when determining caste validity claims. The Court’s decision recognized the significance of pre-constitution documents and concluded that the Scrutiny Committee had erred in disregarding them. By setting aside the committee’s order, the Court upheld the petitioner’s right to establish her caste identity and receive a validity certificate. This ruling serves as a reminder of the need for careful consideration and adherence to the law in caste validity proceedings.

click here to view judgment

0

NOTHING PREVENTED THE AUTHORITY FROM CANCELLING OR REVOKING THE PERMISSION TO FILL IN THE POST: Bombay High Court

Blog , ,

INTRODUCTION

The High Court of Bombay: Nagpur Bench passed a judgement on 10 March 2023. In the case of ARUN THUTE LOKVIKAS PRATISTHAN HINGANGHAT THR. PRESIDENT SMT. USHAKIRAN A. THUTE AND OTHERS Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. SECRETARY TO MINISTRY OF HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI AND OTHERS IN WRIT PETITION NO.1648/2022 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE R. B. DEO and HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE VRUSHALI V. JOSHI the court addressed the issue of the arbitrary rejection of an appointment by the Deputy Director of Education. The case revolved around the appointment of a peon in a school managed by an institution. The rejection was based on the grounds that the appointment was made during a period when there was a ban on recruitment to Class-C and Class-D posts. The court analysed the circumstances and the applicable laws to arrive at a decision.

FACTS

The petitioners, comprising the institution managing the school and the selected candidate for the peon position, sought permission to fill the vacant post. The Deputy Director of Education granted permission to fill the post, and the institution proceeded with the recruitment process. A suitable candidate was selected, and the appointment order was issued. However, later on, the approval for the appointment was rejected by the Deputy Director, citing the ban on recruitment during that period.

THE JUDGMENT

The court examined the grounds of rejection and considered the arguments put forth by both parties. The petitioners contended that the appointment was made after following due procedure, obtaining the necessary permission, and fulfilling all requirements. They highlighted that the appointment was for a clear and permanent vacancy and that the selected candidate belonged to the Other Backward Category.

The Deputy Director, on the other hand, argued that the institution should have stopped the recruitment process even after receiving permission, as the responsibility lay with them. They also mentioned that the previous Deputy Director granted permission without verifying the availability of surplus employees.

The court noted that the rejection of the appointment approval was solely based on the fact that it was made during the period of the recruitment ban. The Deputy Director referred to a government resolution that imposed the ban and subsequent extensions. However, the court found that the recruitment process had already commenced before the imposition of the ban, as evidenced by the permission granted prior to the ban.

The court drew parallels to a similar case decided by a Coordinate Bench and a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the precedent case, the court held that the ban on recruitment would not apply if the process was already initiated by the management. The Apex Court ruled that the ban should not negate the approval already given for filling grant-in-aid posts.

CONCLUSION

After considering the submissions and the applicable legal precedents, the court found the rejection of the appointment approval to be arbitrary. It emphasized that the petitioner had been appointed in a clear and permanent vacancy with permission granted before the ban was imposed. The court noted that the authorities could have cancelled or revoked the permission if necessary. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the Deputy Director to grant approval for the appointment, along with the release of the petitioner’s salary from the date of joining.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to due process and ensuring that decisions are not arbitrary. It serves as a reminder that the imposition of bans on recruitment should not disregard the rights and legitimate expectations of individuals and institutions. The judgment provides clarity on the applicability of bans and the protection of approvals granted before their imposition.

“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 VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

click here to view judgment

0

WRIT PETITION CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF DETENTION OF THE PETITIONER’S BROTHER ALLOWED AT ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Blog , , ,

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Y Maddilety vs The State Of AP

BENCH – THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

WRIT PETITION No. 712 of 2023

DATE OF JUDGEMENT – 12 MAY 2023

INTRODUCTION –

This case is about the writ petition which is challenging the order of the detention of the brother of the petitioner.

The relevant provision followed in this case are as follows –

A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

Section – 3 Power to make order detaining certain persons: –

(1) The Government finds if any boot-legger, dacoit, drug-offender, goonda, immoral traffic offender or land-grabber is acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and if it is necessary so to do, can make an order directing that such person be detained.

(2) A District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in subsection (1), exercise the powers granted by the said subsection if the Government is of the opinion that doing so is necessary considering any circumstances existing or likely to exist in any area within the local limits of their jurisdiction. The Government may make this determination by issuing an order in writing.

Section – 2(g) Definitions – “Goonda”

A “goonda” is a person who regularly commits, seeks to commit, or aids in the commission of acts punishable under Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII, or Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code, whether alone or as a member of or leader of a gang.

FACTS –

As per the learned counsel of the petitioner, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent (The Collector & District Magistrate, Kurnool District )was confirmed by the 1st respondent (State), the petitioner wants to amend the prayer of the writ petition as Yerukali Polenti Satyam, S/o late Y.Devanna, who is now lodged in Central Prison, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District to be set at liberty/ordered to be released forthwith by declaring the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent  as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.

The 2nd respondent, while categorizing the detenue as “Goonda” within the definition of Sections 2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 passed the impugned order of detention.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detenue was allegedly involved in fourteen crimes, in which, some of the cases registered due to family disputes and they can be dealt with under general laws and he was already acquitted in five cases which were not even considered by the authority. That the order of detention does not have any material to justify the detenue as goonda and that the preventive detention shall not be passed. The offences alleged against the detenue do not involve any disturbance of public order and the same cannot be used for issuance of preventive detention order under Section 3 of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was absolutely no illegality nor there exists any procedural infirmity in the impugned action and in the absence of the same, the present writ is not maintainable. Even procedural laws were also not strictly followed by the sponsoring authority, while passing the detention orders, which amounts to procedural irregularity as well not following the provisions contained under on perusal of record by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it reveals that a blanket detention order was passed without specifying a period of detention which is invalid as which is mandated under Section 3(2) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986.

JUDGMENT – 

In this case the court held that the impugned was made without proper application of mind and there was a serious procedural violation. Hence, Hon’ble court was of the opinion that the detenue will not fall under the category of Section 2(g) of the A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986. The order of detention does not show any material to justify the allegation that the detenue is a ‘goonda’ whose activities would be actually prejudicial to public order.

The court held that this Writ Petition was allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent and the detenue namely Yerukali Polenti, was directed to be released forthwith by the respondents.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHIT JAIN

Click here to view judgement

“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.”

0

“THE BATTLE FOR JEE ADVANCED: A PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE EXAM ACCEPTANCE”

Blog , , , , ,

INTRODUCTION

The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 24 May 2023. In the case of ATHARVA MILIND DESAI Vs JOINT ADMISSION BOARD IIT THR. CHAIRPERSON IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6239 OF 2023 which was passed by a division bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA and HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE the court had to decide on a petition filed under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner sought directions to the sole respondent to accept their examination form and fees for the JEE Advance examination. The petitioner claimed that due to network connectivity glitches, they were unable to fill the examination form within the stipulated time frame. The court carefully examined the arguments presented by both parties and the relevant documents before reaching a decision. This blog post aims to analyse the judgment and its implications.

FACTS

The petitioner had qualified the HSC examination in 2022 and was preparing to appear for the JEE Advance examination. However, they encountered network connectivity issues that prevented them from submitting the examination form within the prescribed time frame. The petitioner argued that since they were eligible to appear for the exam based on their previous qualification, they should be allowed to participate, considering their strong percentile score. They also mentioned residing in a rural area with frequent internet and power outages, which further hindered their registration process.

The respondent, the organizing institute for the JEE Advanced Examination, contended that the examination process was strictly governed by an information brochure. According to the brochure, candidates had to register online within a specified time frame. The respondent presented evidence that the petitioner did not log in during the designated period but only successfully logged in on the day after the registration deadline. The respondent argued that making an exception for the petitioner would set a bad precedent and undermine the sanctity of timelines and the merit selection process.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court carefully considered the arguments put forth by both parties and examined the relevant documents, including the petitioner’s login details and the information brochure. It acknowledged the significance of technical institutes like IITs and NITs and the importance of discipline in the education system. The court noted that the registration period provided by the respondent was eight full days, which should have been sufficient for all candidates to complete their registration. It also observed that the petitioner successfully logged in on the day after the deadline, without any explanation for the delay.

The court emphasized that the petitioner had not utilized the grievance redressal mechanism outlined in the information brochure during the registration period. Furthermore, the petitioner’s failure to contact the respondent’s designated channels for grievance or query resolution indicated a lack of diligence on their part. Considering these factors, the court concluded that the rules governing the JEE Advanced Examination were binding on all participants, including the petitioner.

LEGAL PRECEDENTS:

The court referenced the Supreme Court case of Maharshi Dayanand University v. Surjeet Kaur (2010) 11 SCC 159, which highlighted the principle that a court cannot direct an authority to violate its own rules and regulations. The court also mentioned the Delhi High Court case of Pallavi Sharma v. College of Vocational Studies 2015 SCC Online Del 10249, which followed the aforementioned principle.

JUDGMENT

After careful deliberation, the court dismissed the petition, stating that it was not a fit case to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that maintaining discipline and adhering to the rules and regulations were crucial in the interest of lakhs of aspiring meritorious students across the country. It stressed that its direction should not result in authorities violating their own rules.

CONCLUSION

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to rules and regulations in educational processes such as examination registrations. The court’s decision underscores the need for candidates to exercise due diligence and utilize the available mechanisms for grievance resolution within the specified time frames. While sympathizing with the petitioner’s circumstances, the court prioritized the larger interest of maintaining discipline and fairness in the selection process for technical institutes. This judgment sets a precedent for upholding the sanctity of timelines and rules in similar cases, ensuring a fair and transparent examination system.

“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 VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW

click here to view judgement

 

 

 

1 … 5 6 7 8