2004 SCCL.COM 862(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 6234 of 2004)
Government of India Appellant versus G. Limbadri Rao and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):9/22/2004.
Name of the Judge:Honble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan.
Subject Index: Appointment to the IAS -- select list of 2002 for appointment to the IAS to the Union Public Service Commission -- whether the respondent have committed any illegality in considering the case of the first respondent for non-inclusion in the proposals to be sent to the Union Public Service Commission for preparation of the select list of Non-State Civil Services Officers for the year 2002 for appointment to the IAS on the ground that the first respondent has attained the age of 54 years as on 1.1.2002 -- the proposal was sent by the State Government in January, 2002. Therefore, on 1.1.2002, the first respondent has completed the age of 54 years -- the first respondent is not eligible and entitled for considering his name for appointment to the post of IAS by selection -- the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

2004 SCCL.COM 861(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 6233 of 2004)
Pritam Singh Appellant versus Union of India and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):9/22/2004.
Name of the Judge:Honble Mr. Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Hon'ble Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan.
Subject Index: Compulsory retirement punishment -- imposed by the Central Administrative Tribunal -- orders confirmed by the High Court in writ petition -- appeal -- no material on record was placed before the disciplinary authority, appellate authority revisional authority, Tribunal and before the High Court to reasonably form an opinion that compulsory retirement was in public interest -- the order of compulsory retirement passed by the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal set aside.

2004 SCCL.COM 860(Case No:Civil Appeal Nos.6219-6220 of 2004)
Kishori Lal and Another Appellants versus Madan Gopal (D) by Lrs. and Others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):9/22/2004.
Name of the Judge:Honble Mr. Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi and Honble Mr. Justice Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar.
Subject Index: J & K Common Laws Regulation Act, 1956 -- Section 11 -- applicability of -- the High Court did not frame substantial question of law arising in the second appeal -- the High Court did not consider the issue in regard to passage from this perspective whether or not such contention could be allowed to be raised by the appellants and whether it merits acceptance are matters for determination by the High Court -- second appeal remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration -- after framing appropriate substantial questions of law in regard to the two points referred.

2004 SCCL.COM 858(Case No:Criminal Appeal No.1350 of 2003)
Kachrulal Bhagirath Agrawal and Others Appellants versus State of Maharashtra and Others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):9/22/2004.
Name of the Judge:Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Honble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -- Section 133 -- legality of action taken and order passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sakoli having upheld by a learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court -- original non-applicant commission agent in Kirana goods and wholesale dealer in dry chillies -- had godown where he use to store large quantity of chillies -- applicants residents of locality -- loading routine thing for several years -- health and comfort affected -- the applicants proved public nuisance and physical discomfort to them -- learned SDM, Sakoli, proceeded to pass an order under Section 133 of the Code -- the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity.

2004 SCCL.COM 854(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 6178 of 2004 (with C.A. No. 6179 of 2004))(NEW)
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant versus Challa Bharathamma and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):9/21/2004.
Name of the Judge:Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.
Subject Index: Insurance -- liability of the insurer for indemnifying the award of compensation legality of the judgment called in question -- considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability -- the Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle i.e. the insured.

2004 SCCL.COM 853(Case No:Criminal Appeal No.821 of 2004)(NEW)
Madhu Garg Appellant versus Union of India and Another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):9/21/2004.
Name of the Judge:Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: COFEPOSA Act, 1974 -- Section 3(1) -- detention under -- detenu exporter -- exported alloy steel -- one of the allegations made against the detenu in the grounds of detention was that he had exported consignment upon misdeclaration to the effect that alloy steel forging (machined) was being exported whereas actually the same was metal scrap -- the subject matter of the consignment, therefore, was not scrap metal. Had the detaining authority waited for the results of the said chemical analysis before issuing the impugned order of detention, the first ground stated therein could not have been made a basis therefor -- order of detention passed in haste -- when one of the grounds of detention is found to be based on irrelevant materials not germane for passing the order of detention, the entire order of detention shall stand vitiated in law.

2004 SCCL.COM 856(Case No:Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 1999)(NEW)
Prithvi Raj and others Appellants versus Kamlesh Kumar and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):9/20/2004.
Name of the Judge:Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.
Subject Index: Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 -- Section 11 -- scope of -- whether defacto complainant can prefer an appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 11 -- the language of Section 11(2) is unrestricted as to the person who can prefer an appeal. Therefore, there is no justification for confining the right only with the convicted person or even to the State -- the complainant can prefer an appeal under Section 11(2) of the Act questioning propriety of the order passed under Section 3 or 4 of the Act -- section 11(4) makes the position clear that only the propriety of the order passed under Section 3 or 4 in respect of offenders can be dealt with by the Appellate Court or High Court as the case may be -- there is no scope of altering nature of offence and for directing that the accused shall be convicted for another offence. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in directing that the conviction of the appellants shall be under Section 326 IPC.

2004 SCCL.COM 850(Case No:Civil Petition (C) No.344 of 2000)(NEW)
Defence Enclave Residents Society Petitioner versus State of U.P. & Others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):9/20/2004.
Name of the Judge:Honble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Honble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Constitution of India -- Article 32 -- writ petition under -- maintainability of -- writ petition is by a society of the residents of a colony known as Defence Enclave in Meerut. The respondents to the writ petition are the State of U.P., the Meerut Development Authority and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut, U.P. -- though under the camouflage of an infringement of fundamental right, is really a contractual dispute pure and simple. As to whether there is a right reserved in the second Respondent to pass on the additional liability to the purchasers, is determined by the terms of the contract between the parties -- these are matters requiring detailed evidence, without which a satisfactory adjudication of the dispute is not possible. A writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is hardly an occasion for such exercise.

2004 SCCL.COM 849(Case No:Criminal Appeal No. 1040 of 2004)(NEW)
State of U.P. and another Appellants versus Sanjai Pratap Gupta @ Pappu and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):9/20/2004.
Name of the Judge:Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.
Subject Index: National Security Act, 1980 -- Section 3(2) -- respondent detained under -- validity of the detention order questioned -- with a view to prevent him from committing similar prejudicial acts and to maintain public order the order of detention was purportedly passed -- before the High Court stand of the detenu was that the two aspects highlighted in the grounds of detention were not separable and were intimately linked with one another. As necessary documents to substantiate the allegations relating to earlier incidents were not supplied to the detenu that rendered the order of detention invalid -- for determining the question as to whether the detenu has to go back to detention, the factual position has to be analysed -- the live link is not snapped and the apprehension of the detaining authority about the detenu's prejudicial activities cannot be faulted. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The detenu shall surrender forthwith for serving the remainder of the period of detention.

2004 SCCL.COM 859(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 5327 of 2002 (with C.A. Nos. 5328/2002, 6104, 6105-6106/2004, 8292-8295 / 2002, W.P.(C) Nos. 369 and 374 of 2003))
M.P. High Court Bar Association Appellant versus Union of India and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):9/17/2004.
Name of the Judge:Honble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.
Subject Index: Madhya Pradesh State -- Administration Tribunals -- abolition of -- it cannot be said that the decision to abolish State Administrative Tribunal taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh can be quashed and set aside as mala fide -- a policy decision has been taken by the State Government to abolish State Administrative Tribunal. Parliament also empowered the State Government to take an appropriate decision by enacting sub-section (1) of Section 74 of the Act of 2000 and in exercise of such power, the State Government had taken a decision. The decision, in our opinion, cannot be regarded as illegal, unlawful or otherwise objectionable.

2004 SCCL.COM 857(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 6109 of 2004 (C.A. Nos. 6110 to 6123, 6144, 6142, 6127, 6128, 6143, 6140, 6124, 6125, 6129, 6141, 6133, 6126, 6137, 6132, 6130, 6136, 6137, 6139, 6131, 6135, 6134, 6145, 6146, 6147, 6148 of 2004))(NEW)
Union of India and others Appellants versus Mukesh Hans etc. etc. Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):9/17/2004.
Name of the Judge:Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Honble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur.
Subject Index: Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -- Section 17(4) -- interpretation of -- the procedure to be followed by the appropriate Government while dispensing with the inquiry contemplated under Section 5A of the Act -- right of representation and hearing contemplated under Section 5A of the Act is a very valuable right of a person whose property is sought to be acquired and he should have appropriate and reasonable opportunity of persuading the authorities concerned that the acquisition of the property belonging to that person should not be made -- if the appropriate Government decides to take away this minimal right then its decision to do must be based on materials on record to support to same and bearing in mind the object of Section 5A -- the findings of the High Court that the decision of the Lt. Governor to dispense with the 5A inquiry suffered from the vice of non-application of mind has to be upheld.

2004 SCCL.COM 855(Case No:Criminal Appeal No.1033 of 2004)(NEW)
Kirti Kumar Nirula Appellant versus State of Maharashtra and Others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):9/17/2004.
Name of the Judge:Honble Mr. Justice N. Santosh Hegde and Honble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha.
Subject Index: Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 -- Section 3(1) -- detention challenged -- appeal against the judgment and order of Bombay High Court dismissing the criminal writ petition challenging the detention -- undated and unsigned representation cannot be treated as a representation within the meaning of Article 22(5) of the Constitution requiring immediate attention of the authorities concerned -- there was no delay in considering the representation of the appellant.

2004 SCCL.COM 852(Case No:Civil Appeal No. 10106 of 2003)(NEW)
M/s. Medley Minerals India Ltd. Appellant versus State of Orissa and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):9/17/2004.
Name of the Judge:Honble Mr. Justice Shivaraj V. Patil and Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna.
Subject Index: Orissa Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1990 -- quarry lease -- granted in favour of the appellant quashed and cancelled by judgment and order of Division Bench of Orissa High Court -- appellant calls in question the judgment and order -- the High Court erred in quashing the order No. 5507/IV(E)(DS)/SM 4/2003 dated 22nd May 2003, by which the quarry lease had been renewed in favour of the appellant company.

2004 SCCL.COM 851(Case No:Criminal Appeal No. 1011 of 2004)(NEW)
Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi Appellant versus State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy):9/13/2004.
Name of the Judge:Honble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker.
Subject Index: Essential Commodities Act, 1955 -- Section 3 read with section 7(1)(b)(ii) -- conviction under -- confirmed by High Court -- for attracting Section 7 of the Act, the primary requirement is that there must be violation of an order -- neither before the Trial Court nor the High Court, any effort was made to place on record the order the violation of which was alleged -- matter remitted to the High Court to hear the matter afresh -- it would be incumbent upon the State to file materials to show as to which 'order' was violated.