Legopolis

The Allahabad High Court has stayed the notification of delimitation of wards issued on November 5, 2022, regarding elections to the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation. The Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Jayant Banerji passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Darshan Singh. In this petition, the draft order issued under Section 11-B (2) of the U.P Municipalities Act, 1916 dated 5.11.2022 is under challenge on the ground that only two days’ time was provided for filing objections, whereas under law, the said period should not be less than seven days. It is submitted that 6.11.2022 was a Sunday and the petitioner and a large number of other persons have been deprived of their valuable right to file an objection. The Standing Counsel is not in a position to dispute the proposition of law canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner. However, it is urged that before the issuance of impugned notification, another notification was issued under Section 11

The Calcutta High Court imposed Rs 10,000 cost on a petitioner and dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed questioning the appointment of a private respondent on the ground that she was issued the OBC certificate and she obtained the appointment on the basis of false scheduled caste certificate.  The counsel for respondent has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the petition by submitting that a PIL in service matter cannot be entertained.   The counsel for the private respondent  has also questioned the bona fides of the petition by submitting that the petitioner is the uncle of the private respondent  and he has filed the petition as a counterblast to the ongoing dispute between the parties.    The Division Bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj  observed that the petitioner is closely related to private respondent  being her uncle but this fact has been suppressed in the PIL. Affidavit-in-opposition filed by t

The Allahabad High Court has stayed the declaration of results for the recruitment of security officers in Allahabad University till the next date of hearing. A Single Bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Ambuj Kumar Mishra. Submission of the counsel for the petitioner, in absence of any higher/statutory law, never became open to the University to alter mode and method of the examination by introducing the subjective questionnaire though in the original advertisement, it was clearly indicated that only objective type questions would be put to the candidates. Second, the objection is, intimation of change of examination pattern was given merely seven days before conduct of the examination. The Court observed that the matter requires consideration. “Counsel for the University may serve a copy of the counter affidavit upon counsel for the petitioner by 2 January, 2023. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed on the next date with prior s

The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that the future in legal profession belongs to women. The CJI said that times have changed and there is a great gender diversity which is seen among the judicial officers. The CJI said that both women and men are coming in large numbers to the judicial fraternity in many States … [Women] have outstripped in terms of the number of men coming into then judicial fraternity, the judicial service. I do believe that this is the sign of the times when judicial services will be enriched by the presence of what constitutes a very rich, and more than half our society today … So I do believe that the future in our profession belongs to the women. The CJI spoke in the same while speaking at the inaugural function of a new building of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Academy. The CJI while anddress the audience said that it is  the failing of the profession that most district courts still did not have usable washrooms or sanitary-napkin dispensers for

The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said that the future in legal profession belongs to women. The CJI said that times have changed and there is a great gender diversity which is seen among the judicial officers. The CJI said that both women and men are coming in large numbers to the judicial fraternity in many States … [Women] have outstripped in terms of the number of men coming into then judicial fraternity, the judicial service. I do believe that this is the sign of the times when judicial services will be enriched by the presence of what constitutes a very rich, and more than half our society today … So I do believe that the future in our profession belongs to the women. The CJI spoke in the same while speaking at the inaugural function of a new building of the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Academy. The CJI while anddress the audience said that it is  the failing of the profession that most district courts still did not have usable washrooms or sanitary-napkin dispensers for

The Tripura High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking quashing candidates selected in the final merit list of PA-II (Jr. Grade Stenographer), Group-C under the West Tripura District Judiciary prepared by the respondent No.1 (High Court of Tripura) on 27.07.2022. The Division Bench of Chief Justice (Acting) Justice T. Amarnath Goud observed that earlier the Petitioner had filed a PIL seeking  quashing the final merit list of 84 candidates for the post of PA-II (Jr. Grade Stenographer) (Group-C) under District Judiciary of Tripura prepared by the District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala on 27.07.2022. The same is withdrawn by the Counsel for the Petitioner later. Now, by filing the present petition in December, 2022, the petitioner has challenged the notification which has been issued on 12.01.2021 and the reasons for filing the petition by way of Public Interest Litigation after almost two years time is not explained. On the said ground of lac

The Allahabad High Court has allowed the bail application of Golu Panda, a murder accused in Muthiganj police station, Prayagraj limits. A single-judge bench of Justice Rajeev Misra passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Golu Mishra @ Golu Panda. The application for bail has been filed by the applicant seeking his enlargement on bail in case under sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC, Police Station Muthiganj, District Prayagraj, during the pendency of trial. The Court noted, Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have occurred on 23.1.2022, a delayed FIR dated 24.1.2022 was lodged by first informant Rajat Jaiswal and was registered as Case under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Muthiganj, District Prayagraj. In the aforesaid FIR, four persons namely Himansu Panda, Kallu Panda, Golu Panda and Salman have been nominated as named accused. The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is to the effect that on 23.1.2022, named acc

The Bombay High Court has directed  the Nagpur Municipal Corporation to clarify as to whether or not the dogs which have been collared by corporation authorities have been sterilised and if so, whether their ears have been clipped and/or tattooed and as to whether or not tokens have been issued to those dogs while maintaining a register of sterilised dogs. The Nagpur Division Bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M.W. Chandwani heard a public interest litigation (PIL) filed  in respect of eliminating nuisance and menace of stray dogs in Nagpur.   The Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, filed his affidavit tendering an unconditional apology in response to the show cause notice issued to him on the last occasion. His affidavit of apology is not happily worded but, the Court is  willing to grant leniency to the Deputy Commissioner with the hope that he has realised now the responsibility and duty of his office. The unconditional apology is accepted by the High Court and

The Bombay High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which was filed  seeking directions against Principal Secretary Urban Development  (Maharashtra)  to ensure effective implementation of the provisions of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014. The PIL filed by  Rajiv Gandhi Hawkers Union and others further seeks implementation of the provisions  in tune with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ville Parle Kelvani Mandal v/s. The MCGM & Others (WP No.224 of 2011). So also in the case of Janhit Manch v/s. MCGM & Others (PIL 36 0f 2010) by issuing certificate of vending to 75 street vendors as per the notified list in the present PIL. A. A. Siddiquie , Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that once the survey is conducted of the hawkers, then they have to be issued with the vending license. TheCounsel further submits that a survey of 810 hawkers has been conducted. The Corporati

The Delhi High Court was apprised by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) that no religious structures will be removed from Mehrauli Archeological Park in its drive to remove encroachments from the area. The Delhi Waqf Board was represented by senior advocate Sanjoy Ghose who argued in the Delhi High Court before a division bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Subramonium Prasad. The counsel said that the DDA is carrying out a demolition drive, including that of religious structures and graveyards, and therefore, the demolition deserves to be stayed. The advocate Ghose argued that the demolition will be stayed as there was a dispute over the properties of the Waqf board in the area. He further submitted that the demarcation process has not been completed till now The advocate for DDA Shobhana Takiar, appearing for the DDA, said that clearly before the HC that religious structures as well as graveyards will not be demolished. She submitted that the demolition

The Uttarakhand High Court issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking a direction to the State authorities to take immediate and effective steps to stop mechanized mining, in any form, in the rivers/ water bodies in the State of Uttarakhand, except for flood management, during rains. The petitioner is concerned about the rampant unscientific and unregulated mechanized river bed mining being done in the rivers of the State of Uttarakhand and seeks stoppage of the same. It is pointed out by the petitioner that the royalty payable by the respondent, which is a State agency and is legally doing manual mining on the river beds in the State, is much higher than the royalty paid by private lessees, thereby making the mining carried out by Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation (respondent no.4) financially unviable. He submits that respondent no.4 is being discriminated against, as the royalty payable by respondent no.4, is higher than the royalty payable by the p

By Inderjit Badhwar December 10th should be considered, along with all major religious landmark events like Diwali, Xmas, Eid, Gurpurab, Hanukkah, a day of reflection and the celebration of the power of the human spirit. In its own way, this date is a call to all humankind that they are endowed by their creator with the right to enjoy a life of joy and freedom from oppression. It marks the day the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. These inalienable rights—entitled universally, without discrimination—include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of expression and opinion, the right to work and education… and many more. These principles are a call to humankind to abandon the dark ages and gladiatorial and tyrannical savagery of absolutism and to awaken into a universe of freedom, of compassion, of justice. Alas, this is only an ideal. The reality is that our much vaunted globalism is still pla

The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application observing that if any opinion is taken on the basis of the evidence given by the hostile witnesses, it amounts to evaluating the evidence by the Court, which is impermissible while deciding the bail application under Section 439 CrPC. A Single Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Krishna Kant. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was heard and rejected by the Court order dated 21.11.2019. The second bail application has been filed on the new ground that two of the witnesses of last seen, namely, Om Prakash and Ramesh Chandra have been examined before the Trial Court but they have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. It is further submitted that informant Madan has also been examined, who has also not supported the case before the Trial Cour

The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application observing that if any opinion is taken on the basis of the evidence given by the hostile witnesses, it amounts to evaluating the evidence by the Court, which is impermissible while deciding the bail application under Section 439 CrPC. A Single Bench of Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Krishna Kant. This is the second bail application moved on behalf of the applicant. The first bail application of the applicant was heard and rejected by the Court order dated 21.11.2019. The second bail application has been filed on the new ground that two of the witnesses of last seen, namely, Om Prakash and Ramesh Chandra have been examined before the Trial Court but they have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. It is further submitted that informant Madan has also been examined, who has also not supported the case before the Trial Cour

The Uttarakhand High Court has observed that  it is generally not for the Court to micro-manage such aspects of development and take a decision as to where a particular facility should be located. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Ramesh Chandra Khulbe disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking  direction to the the respondents not to relocate the existing / present garbage and waste disposal site near the water source and cremation area of the petitioner’s Village Kuneli, Village Panchayat Marora, Gairsain, District Chamoli, Uttarakhand.” “First and foremost, we may observe that it is generally not for the Court to micro-manage such aspects of development and take a decision as to where a particular facility should be located. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the decision of the respondents to relocate, or create another garbage and waste disposal facility”, the Court observed. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that

The Allahabad High Court has allowed the petition filed in the 2018 police PAC recruitment for not selecting the backward class women in the quota despite getting more than general category women cut-off marks. A Single Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Km Priya Swami and 8 Others. The petitioners had appeared for recruitment as a Constable in the U.P Police in the year 2018. In the category of Other Backward Class Female, the petitioners had obtained more than 160 marks whereas the cut-off marks in the general category female was much lesser. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners’ case is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Saurabh Yadav & Ors vs State of U.P & Ors reported in 2021 (1) ESC 206 (SC). Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon a judgment of the Court in Writ-A No 2532 of 2021 (Rajesh Kumar Thakur vs State of U.P & Ors) decided on 7.10.2021 and other ju

The Gauhati High Court has observed that respondent authorities shall make all endeavour to set up electric/LPG crematorium at all District Headquarters in the State of Assam. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Rashmin Manharbhai Chhaya and Justice Soumitra Saikia closed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), which prayed for the following reliefs:  “In the premises aforesaid it is therefore prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why writ of mandamus shall not be issued:  (i) Directing the authorities to set-up electrical/LPG crematorium in the crematoriums of the State;  (ii) Initiate steps to make the electrical/LPG crematoriums functional;  (iii) Initiate steps for awareness of the people about the eco-friendly benefits of the electrical/LPG crematoriums and to encourage them to use the same for funeral;  (iv) To disseminate information about availability of ‘Green Cremation Pyres’ and its benefits in various m

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed with a prayer to appoint a sitting Judge of the High Court under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 to inquire into the incident of unnatural death of Bara Lalan Sk, prime accused in the March 22 Bogtui carnage. The plea contended that on March 22 at village Bogtui on the outskirts of Rampurhat, Birbhum, an incident of arson and bomb blast had taken place. The High Court, in ‘The Court on its own Motion, In re: The Brutal Incident of Bogtui Village, Rampurhat, Birbhum,’ had handed over the investigation to CBI by the order dated March 25, 2022. Bara Lalan Sk, prime accused of the Bogtui incident, arrested by CBI, suffered unnatural death on the night of December 12, while he was in CBI custody. Hence, the PIL has been filed with several prayers.     While considering the PIL , the Division Bench of Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj  observed that  the main thrust of argument

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has set aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Barabanki and the appellant acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Sections 302, 201 IPC and Section -4/25 of the Arms Act. The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Sanjay Kumar Pachori passed this order while hearing a Jail Appeal filed by Ghanshyam @ Maidhoo. This is an appeal challenging the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki dated 26.03.2009 by which the appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs 5,000/-, failing which, he will have to undergo additional simple imprisonment for six months, conviction under Section 201 IPC and sentence of three years imprisonment with fine of Rs 3,000/-, failing which, he will have to undergo additional three months’ simple imprisonment as also conviction and sentence under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 to three