Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jan-21-1999
Reported in : (1999)IILLJ1363Guj
r. balia, j. 1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as mr. rathod who has appeared for the caveator respondent no. 1 representing the four workmen, namely, mukesh karsanbhai vora, tarun kumar j. acharya, dinesh d. vaghela and bakul g. maru. 2. the petition is against the award of the industrial tribunal, gujarat, rajkot dated june 5, 1998. a reference was made to the tribunal at the instance of respondents whether the four workmen out of whom except d. d. vaghela are working on the establishment of the petitioner for more than five years and all the four workmen have completed 240 days service in the calendar year, in these circumstances, whether they are entitled to be made permanent and other benefits attached to such status out of the four workmen, two workmen, namely, t. j. acharya and m. k. vora have worked as wiremen whereas d. d. vaghela and b. g. maru have worked as helper wiremen. the order of reference also speaks that these workmen are qualified for the post. the petitioner-employer, had contested the claim of the workmen to regularisation inter alia on the ground that there are no posts and there is no permanent nature of work available, and the concerned workmen are appointed only casually to discharge casual duties. 3. on enquiry considering the material before it, the tribunal found that looking to the needs of the establishment there is permanent requirement of at least five persons to work as wiremen. against such requirement only two persons .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-13-1999
Reported in : AIR2000Guj45; (2000)2GLR1036
r.k. abichandani, j.1. this group of petitions raises the question whether a local authority can impose a condition while issuing a trade licence that the trade or its operation which in the opinion of the commissioner, is dangerous to health, life or property or likely to create nuisance either from its nature or by reason of the manner in which or the conditions under which the same is or is proposed to be carried on, can be carried on only in an industrial zone, thereby prohibiting such trade or operation to be carried on in other areas including residential areas.2. in this set of three petitions, the lead matter being special civil application no. 2490 of 1999 has been filed by thirty three petitioners against the ahmedabad municipal corporation, deputy health officer of the corporation and the state of gujarat, seeking a direction on the respondents to renew the licences of the petitioners as required under the provisions of the bombay provincial municipal corporation act, 1949 and for quashing and setting aside the impugned notices dated 18th march, 1999 of the nature of annexure 'f' to the petition and the impugned orders dated 31st march, 1999 of the nature at annexure 'i' to the petition. according to the petitioners their trade or business of melting gold and silver is done since several decades under licences given to them under section 376(1) and it does not cause any nuisance or health hazard in the locality in which it is carried on. it is alleged that the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-16-1999
Reported in : (2000)1GLR72
c.k. buch, j.1. rule. learned counsel mr. b.t. rao waives service of rule for respondents nos. 1 & 3 and learned additional public prosecutor mr. d.n. patel for respondent no. 2 state.2. heard learned counsel for the parties. at the admission stage learned advocates have agreed to dispose of this matter finally, hence the same is taken up for final hearing.3 the petitioner is an authorised person of one m/s. swami nana exchange (p) ltd. having its registered office at nadiad of district kheda. according to the petitioner, his father has expired. his one uncle jitubhai kapadia has also expired. he, his cousin brother (son of jitubhai kapadia) and his uncle chimanbhai harjivandas kapadia are residing in a joint family. the joint family is headed by the petitioner's uncle chimanbhai harjivandas kapadia. according to the petitioner, he, himanshu (son of chitubhai kapadia) and daughtger-in-law of his uncle chimanbhai h. kapadia, smt. alkaben are authorised officers of m/s. swami nana exchange (p) ltd. smt.alkaben wife of gaurangbhai chimanbhai kapadia is the chairperson of this company. according to the petitioner, the petitioner and his cousin brothers and uncle chimanbhai kapadia are residing under a common roof at 10, uttam park society, college road, nadiad.4. the petitioner has filed this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india and has prayed for the following main reliefs:(a) that the hon.'ble court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ and/or direction to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Nov-05-1999
Reported in : (2000)2GLR269
1. the municipal corporation of the city of ahmedabad has in this group of petitions sought a declaration that the requirements denoted by the word 'successfully' and by the words 'and so long as it functions successfully' in rule 6 of the water (prevention and control of pollution) cess rules, 1976 are inconsistent with the provisions of section 7 of the water (prevention and control of pollution) cess act, 1977 and therefore inoperative and void. the petitioner corporation has challenged the order dated 31st december, 1985 passed by the appellate authority and the revised assessment order dated 9th january, 1985 which was consequentially made.2. according to the petitioner, the polluting parameters as mentioned in the conditions imposed under the consent granted to the petitioner under section 25 of the water (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1974 and the maximum permissible limits of ranges allowed as per the consent condition were as under:(1) b.o.d. 20 mg./l.(2) suspended solids 30 mg./l.the legislature with a view to provide adequate funds to the state boards for their effective functioning, enacted the water (prevention and control of pollution) cess act, 1977. under the charging section 3 of the cess act, it was provided that there shall be levied and collected a cess for the purposes of water (prevention and control of pollution) act, 1974 and utilization thereunder. the levy and collection of cess was made applicable not only to persons carrying on any .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Oct-11-1999
Reported in : (2000)4GLR596
h.k. rathod, j.1. learned advocate shri a.k.clerk is appearing for the petitioner-workman. learned advocate shri r.h.mehta is appearing for the respondent-oil and natural gas commission ('the commission' for short). the facts of the present case, in short, are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent corporation on 1.6.1969 as a contingent employee and on completion of the 11 years' period of service, the petitioner's services were regularized on the post of khalasi with effect from 6.8.1980. according to the case of the petitioner, in the seniority list of contingent/work charged unskilled employees having completed 240 days of service, the name of the petitioner appears at sr.no. 240; that there are other persons working in similar posts in the respondent commission as the petitioner namely sarasvashri chhotaji varsanji, popatji madhurji and mangaji ataji who are junior to the petitioner and who are at sr.no. 241 to 243 in the said seniority list are said to have joined the service as contingent employees on 1.6.69 whereas they were regularized on 3.12.1977, 3.1.1975 and 3.1.1975 respectively. according to the petitioner, though the petitioner was senior to the said three persons on the basis of engagement as contingent employee and is shown to be senior in the seniority list, the action of the respondent authorities in regularizing her only on 6.8.1980 is clearly arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, in breach of the ongc terms of conditions of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Jul-20-1999
Reported in : (1999)3GLR2105
y.b. bhatt, j.1. heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.2. there is no controversy that the present petition challenges certain orders passed by the authorities under the provisions of the urban land (ceiling & regulation) act, 1976.3. there is also no dispute that the state of gujarat adopted the urban land (ceiling & regulation) repeal act, 1999 on 30th march 1999. there cannot be any dispute that the present petition was pending on the date when the repeal act came into force.4. at the present stage i am directly concerned, not with the merits of the petition, i.e. not with the merits of the impugned orders, but as to the applicability of section 4 of the act of 1999. this limited controversy not only goes to the root of the problem, but is also the substantial contention brought before this court in a note filed by the respondents herein.5. section 4 of the act of 1999 reads as under:'4. all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the principal act pending immediately before the commencement of this act, before any court, tribunal or other authority shall abate:provided that this section shall not apply to the proceedings relating to sections 11 12 13 and 14 of the principal act in so far as such proceedings are relatable to the land, possession of which has been taken over by the state government or any person duly authorised by the state government in this behalf or by the competent authority.'on a plain reading of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-06-1999
Reported in : 2000CriLJ1660; 2000(2)WLC739
orderb.s. chauhan, j.1. all these petitions have been filed against the order of removal of public prosecutors/additional public prosecutors/additional government advocates working in the high court of judicature for rajasthan at jodhpur and the district courts subordinate to it. as common questions of law are involved, all these petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment. the facts and circumstances giving rise to these cases have variance to some extent and, thus, in brief, the facts of each case would be considered separately for disposal of the case, but first legal issues are being examined.2. at this stage it may be mentioned that petitioners had been appointed under the provisions of section 24 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (for short, 'cr.p.c.') read with the provisions of the rajasthan law and judicial department manual, 1952 (for short, 'the manual') and tenure of some of them had been extended for a definite or indefinite period.3. the main arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners had been that once petitioners had been appointed, they cannot be removed without due process of law; rule 16(1) confers an unfettered and unbriddled power upon the government to remove the duly appointed public prosecutors without assigning any reason; any order, not supported by reasons, is liable to be quashed and, therefore, the impugned orders of removal of petitioners are bad and deserve to be quashed.4. in reply, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-13-1999
Reported in : 2001ACJ1936
v.s. kokje, j.1. this is an appeal by the insurance company on two points. the first point is as to whether the liability of the insurance company was unlimited, as taken by the motor accidents claims tribunal deciding the case and the second point is as to whether the quantum of compensation granted was exorbitant, in the circumstances of the case.2. on the first point, the learned counsel for the insurance company now feels satisfied that he has no case, as under the policy extra premium has been paid for making the liability of the insurance company unlimited. he, therefore, does not press the first point. so far as the second point is concerned, an insurance company can contest the case on merits of grant of compensation only in exceptional circumstances. this is an appeal arising out of an accident, the claim petition in respect of which was governed by the motor vehicles act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the grounds on which the insurance company could defend the claim petition were limited and on the point of quantum of compensation the insurance company could not contest the case. section 110-c(2-a) of the act provided that where, in the course of any inquiry, the claims tribunal is satisfied that-(i) there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or (ii) the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, the tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, direct .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-22-1999
Reported in : 2000WLC(Raj)UC464; 2000(2)WLN554
bhagwati prasad, j.1. in this revision petition, an application has been moved on behalf of respondent no. 4 wherein it has been alleged that he had filed a caveat and the petitioners had knowledge of it. since the applicant having filed a caveat had the right of hearing before the matter was taken up for admission. the orders were passed without hearing the applicant. therefore, the order of admission and stay passed by this court on 21.10.1999 deserves to be re ailed.2. the case was taken up for arguments on the question whether a caveat is permissible in criminal matters. the arguments were heard on 2.12.1999 and the order was reserved.3. learned counsel for the respondent/applicant urged that the rajasthan high court rules, 1952 makes a provision under rule 159 that as and when a caveat is lodged, the registrar will give notice of the lodging of the appeal and it would be required that appellant/ petitioner will furnish a copy of the appeal/petition or application to the caveator. the caveator is entitled to notice of the petition.4. learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the procedure prescribed under rule 159 of the rajasthan high court rules, 1952 having not been followed the order of admission and stay deserves to be recalled. he has placed reliance on a decision of this court delivered in the matter of hari ram v. ratanlal wherein this court has held that caveat having been filed in a writ petition, the respondent was entitled to notice. the notice having .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-30-1999
Reported in : 1999(3)WLC511; 1999(1)WLN319
v.s. kokje, j.1. the appellant in d.b. civil special appeal no. 410/98 who was a candidate for direct recruitment in the rajasthan higher judicial service ('rhjs' for short), and who stood 8th in the merit list of selection had filed a petition in this court claiming that she was entitled to be declared selected and be appointed or considered for appointment as, on a correct calculation, the vacancies for direct recruitment in the rhjs in accordance with the applicable rules came to 10 and not 7 and the petitioner being the 8th selected candidate was entitled to appointment against the post. the learned single judge dismissed the petition and this therefore, is an appeal by the appellant- petitioner under clause 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance.2. an advertisement dated 31.10.1994 was published by the high court inviting applications for being considered for appointment in the rhjs against 7 vacancies including the two vacancies reserved for candidates belonging to scheduled castes and one vacancy for a candidate belonging to scheduled tribe. it was also stipulated in the advertisement that the number of posts could be increased.3. the recruitment to rhjs is governed by rajasthan higher judicial service rules 1969 ('the rules' for short), as amended from time to time. rule 6 of the rules provides for the strength of the service and also provides for varying the strength from time to time. rule 9 of the rules provides that the number of persons appointed to the service .....Tag this Judgment!