L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
P.Raghava Kurup & Anr vs V.Ananthakumari & Ors

Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent No.1 V.Ananthakumari ( hereinafter referred to as respondent ) was working as a Peon in Viswabharathi Model High School. She was appointed as a Peon on 19.6.1984 and the appointment was approved. She possessed all necessary qualification for being considered for appointment as High School Assistant (Hindi). On account of retirement, a vacancy in High School Assistant (Hindi) arose in the School on 1.4.2000. Since other incumbents in the School were not eligible and respondent alone was eligible for being considered for appointment to the said post, therefore, she made a request to management to consider her case but the Management did not accede to her request and rejected the same. Appointment was given to one P.Rajeev- the appellant herein vide Ext.P1 dated 1.8.2000. This appointment of the appellant herein was approved by the District Education Officer by order dated 23.9.2000. Thereafter the respondent (herein) approached the Kerala High Court by filing a writ petition and direction was given by the Court in O. P.No.19512 of 2000 to the District Education Officer to consider the candidature of the respondent. The District Education Officer rejected her claim. The matter was taken up in appeal before the Director of Public Instructions and the Director of Public Instructions allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the appointment of appellant herein. Aggrieved against the order of the Director of Public Instructions, the appellants herein filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Director of Public Instructions. Aggrieved against the order passed by learned Single Judge, the respondent herein filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench set aside the order of learned Single Judge and held that the respondent herein was qualified to be appointed as High School Assistant (Hindi). Aggrieved against aforesaid order present appeal was filed.

If either of these two conditions is fulfilled, the later law, even though general, would prevail."

As a result of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court appears to be justified. Hence, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Assistant Commissioner Anti Evasion ... vs M/S Amtek India Limited

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

According to the assessee, plant and machinery and equipments purchased by respondent-assessee from the consignor though purchased under invoice No.155 dated 16.2.2000 in which due excise duty and Central Sales Tax @ 4% against C-Form was charged by the seller, but the goods were consigned and received after the lapse of about one year.

Both the Appellate Authorities i.e. D.C. (Appeals) as well as Tax Board found the said explanation of the assessee satisfactory and correct and, therefore, set aside the penalty under Sec. 78(5) of the Act. The revenue filed a revision petition before the High Court under Section 86 of the Act on the supposed question of law arising in the matter. The High Court found that as a matter of fact none arises.

In the Revision Petition filed, the correctness of views expressed by the Appellate Authority i.e. the DC (Appeals) and the Tax Board were questioned. The High Court found that all relevant documents were produced, the declarations issued by the Sales Tax Authorities of both the States clearly established that transit and transactions were perfectly genuine and there was no reason for the Assessing Authority to hold the document to be non-genuine so as to attract levy of penalty at the rate of 30% of the value of goods under Section 38(5) of the Act. The High Court felt that the action of the authorities cannot be countenanced and they cannot take the plea of good faith. The alleged good faith was not established and on the contrary the action clearly indicated that the assessing officer was bent upon levying the demand overlooking the genuine documents. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed and costs were imposed.

In this case though the action of the concerned assessing officer, in overlooking the documents produced coming to the conclusion about manipulation appears to be totally uncalled for and without any reasonable basis. This is a case where the officer should have been more careful and should not have acted in a manner as if he was a bloodhound and not a watchdog of revenue. It is unfortunate that in large number of cases, orders totally bereft of rationality are being passed. They do not in any manner serve public interest, much less the interest of revenue.

Therefore, while holding that the action of the Assessing Authority was clearly unjustified, we direct deletion of the direction for imposition of cost. We, however, make it clear that in future if any such action comes to the notice of the Courts/Authorities, appropriate action shall be taken in accordance with law and the observations made in this case about lack of bona fide shall also be a factor to be taken note of.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union Of India & Others

In the meanwhile, Respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, which was marked as Writ Petition No. 20883 of 1997. The High Court by reason of an order dated 17.02.1998 dismissed the said writ petition on the premise that he had an alternative remedy. Respondent No.4 thereafter moved the President of India in his capacity of the 'Visitor' of the said University. The 'Visitor' was of the opinion that the selection process was illegal. The selection proceeding, therefore, was set aside. However, before the said order was passed, the comments of the University were called for. The University offered its comments. The order of the Visitor was communicated by the Desk Officer, Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Secondary Education and Higher Education), Government of India, by a letter dated 18.10.2000, intimating the Registrar of the University that the President of India in his capacity as the Visitor of the University had annulled the appointment of the appellant in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Section 5(7) of the Banaras Hindu University Act, 1915 (for short, 'the Act'), the relevant portion of the said letter is as under :

Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. If an uncertainty is allowed to prevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible candidates. A cut-off date for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any rule or any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as held by this Court would be the last date for filing the application.

We, therefore, see no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court, in this behalf.

This bring us to the question as to whether the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the audi alteram partem is one of the basic pillar of natural justice which means no one should be condemned unheard. However, whenever possible the principle of natural justice should be followed. Ordinarily in a case of this nature the same should be complied with. Visitor may in a given situation issue notice to the employee who would be effected by the ultimate order that may be passed. He may not be given an oral hearing, but may be allowed to make a representation in writing.

The principles of equity in a case of this nature, in our opinion, will have no role to play. Sympathy, as is well-known, should not be misplaced.

We have noticed hereinbefore that in making appointment of the appellant, the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and statutory rules were not complied with. The appointment, therefore, was illegal and in that view of the matter, it would be wholly improper for us to invoke our equity jurisdiction.

For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Nair Service Society vs State Of Kerala

The legislature of the State of Kerala thereafter enacted the Kerala State Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments or Posts in the Services Under the State) Act, 1995 ('the State Act'), in terms whereof it was declared that there was no socially advanced section in the State. Section 4 of the State Act contemplates that nothing contained in the law or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court or any other authority, the reservation, which had been in operation since 1958, shall continue to operate. The Society filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court questioning the validity of the State Act. This Court admittedly passed an order dated 4.11.1996 requesting the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court to appoint a High Powered Committee to determine the criteria for identification of 'creamy layer'.

The Court furthermore noticed the contemptuous acts on the part of the authorities of State of Kerala and held that they had deliberately been violating the orders of this Court. Some strictures were also passed against the State Government. It was directed that the recommendations of the Joseph Committee should be implemented forthwith until such time the State comes up with its own criteria for determining 'creamy layer'. It further directed that the suo motu contempt previously initiated by the Court would be kept pending and the State should purge its contempt only by complying with the directions contained in Indra Sawhney-II.

The Commission submitted an interim report. Its request seeking extension of time was accepted. At the instance of the petitioner-Society the Commission, however, in its interim report directed the State to implement the report of the Joseph Committee. The Committee sought for certain records of 9.2.2000. On 16.2.2000 the State issued fresh guidelines for identifying creamy layer in accordance with the Joseph Committee report. The Commission submitted its final report on 11.4.2000. In this writ petition filed by the Society, the validity of the said notification is in question.

Yet again it was stated :

Constitutional provisions are required to be construed harmoniously.

Nothing has been brought on record to show that the paragraph 2(1)(c) of G.O. dated 27th May, 2000 had been given a go-by.

In this view of the matter, although while setting aside the report of the Narendran Commission, we direct the State to appoint a fresh Commission who should go into all these aspects of the matter and submit its report.

The writ petition is allowed with the aforementioned directions and observations. We, however, for the present do not intend to pass any order on the contempt petitions. They shall remain pending.

No costs.
Manish Maheshwari vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr

The assessee 'M/s Indore Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd.' (for short, 'the Company') is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'). One Shri Rameshwar Maheshwari is of one of its Directors. Shri Maheshwari, apart from being a Director of the said Company, is also a tax consultant. A search was conducted, as contemplated under Section 132 of the Act, in the premises of the said Maheshwari and his wife Smt. Lalita Devi on 21.11.1995. Several incriminating documents relating to the business of the Company were seized. A proceeding was initiated against the Company purported to be under Section 158BC of the Act. The order of assessment was passed on 29.11.1996. The Tribunal in an appeal preferred by the assessee thereagainst opined that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to proceed against the assessee for making the block assessments in terms of Chapter XIV-B of the Act, as no search was conducted in terms of Section 132 of the Act, stating :

An appeal preferred by the respondent herein before the High Court, as noticed hereinbefore, thereagainst under Section 260-A of the Act, has been allowed, holding that the Assessing Officer had the requisite jurisdiction in terms of Section 158BD of the Act read with Section 2(31) thereof. The Block Assessment Period is 1987-88 to 1995-96. The search was conducted on 21.11.1995, wherefor a warrant of authorization was issued on 15.10.1995 in the following terms :

We are of the opinion that the said decision has no application in the instant case.

As the Assessing Officer has not recorded its satisfaction, which is mandatory; nor has it transferred the case to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgments of the High Court cannot be sustained, which are set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Harjit Singh & Anr vs The State Of Punjab & Anr

Appellants were appointed as Constables in the Police Department of the State of Punjab. They had been put on a duty to keep a watch on Bhagu Ram who was admitted in a hospital. He was allegedly shackled to the bed. At about 9 p.m. on the intervening night of 19th/20th May, 1984, the appellants alongwith one Parminder Singh (since deceased) were found to be absent by the Inspector of Police. He made enquiries whereupon, he came to know that all the three constables were absent from duty from 9 p.m. onwards. Other constables from the police lines had to be requisitioned. They reported to Police Lines at about 3 a.m. on the same day. They were charge sheeted and a departmental proceedings was initiated against them. The Enquiry Officer found them guilty. The enquiry report was accepted by the Superintendent of Police, the Disciplinary Authority. A second Show Cause Notice was issued to which all the delinquent officers replied. By an Order dated 21.1.1985, the disciplinary authority, however, having found the cause shown by the delinquents to be unsatisfactory, passed orders of dismissal from service against them. Appellants and said Parminder Singh filed a suit. One of the contentions raised in the said suit was that in passing the order of punishment, the disciplinary authority had not complied with the provisions of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules. It reads as under:-

It must be disjunctive and independent. The common link that connects both clauses is "the gravest act/acts of misconduct."

In the aforementioned situation, ordinarily, we would have asked the Disciplinary Authority to consider the matter afresh, but the occurrence has taken place in the year 1984. Appellants and the said Parminder Singh had worked only for a few years, one of them is dead. In the aforementioned situation, we are of the opinion that we would be justified to fix the quantum of punishment. We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case and in particular having regard to the passage of time, punishment of compulsory Retirement will meet the ends of justice. If otherwise eligible, the delinquents would be entitled to retiral benefits. The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Khazan Singh (D) By Lrs vs Gurbhajan Singh & Ors

On the basis thereof, it was opined:

The revision petition filed thereagainst by the decree holders respondents have been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment.

We may now deal with the application for impleadment as also application for substitution filed by the applicant and the appellant respectively.

This Court at this stage does not intend to determine the said question particularly in view of the statement of the respondents and in particular for the reason that it is not necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. These applications for impleadment as also for substitution, therefore, are rejected.

We, for the reasons stated hereinbefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
Vijay Singh Charak vs Union Of India And Ors

3. The facts of the case are that a Select List dated 28.3.1991 was prepared for induction of State Forest Service officials of Jammu & Kashmir into the Indian Forest Service (hereinafter referred to as `IFS'). The appellant's name figured in the Select List at serial Number 26. The total number of vacancies were 35, and hence ordinarily appellant should have been selected and appointed. However, the Select list was challenged in a batch of writ petitions which were disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court dated 12.3.1993. The operative portion of that order states:

7. Thus, the persons at serial numbers 32 to 35 in the Select List of 1995 were not even eligible for selection in 1991. In the notification dated 12.9.1995, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure P-4 to this appeal shows that the persons at serial numbers 27 to 28 were not even eligible in 1991. However, by the impugned judgment dated 24.9.1998, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ Petition filed by the appellant herein. Thereafter, the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was also dismissed by the impugned dated 26.5.1999. Hence, this appeal by way of special leave.

12. A Select List can only be prepared for a particular year, and only those who are eligible in that particular year alone can be considered for selection in the Select List. Even if the Select List is not prepared in that very year, it will relate back to that particular year.

15. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgments of the Division Bench as well as the Single Bench of the High Court are set aside. Resultantly, the impugned Select List dated 12.9.1995 is quashed. The State Government is directed to prepare a fresh Select list for each year separately considering only those persons/officers who were eligible for selection in that particular year. This exercise must be completed as expeditiously as possible. Any selection made in pursuance of the Select List dated 12.9.1995 stands quashed. Fresh selections and appointments will be made as directed above. No costs.
State Of Manipur And Anr vs Ksh. Moirangninthou Singh And Ors

4. The learned Single Judge by his Judgment directed the state Government to regularize the services of the writ petitioners and to grant them all service benefits, including pensionary benefits, as are payable to government employees holding civil posts. The learned Single Judge also directed that the serices of the employees who have put in 10 years' of service in the Home Guards should be regularized. The learned Single Judge further directed amendment of the Rules and the Act.

13. The initial appointment is for 3 years after which it is at the discreation of the Commandent (subject to approval of the Commandant General) to reappoint a member of the Home Guards, or not.

15. For the reasons given above these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench as well as of the learned Single Judge are set aside and the writ petitions filed in the Guwahati High Court are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

16. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that the Home Guards Act in several States appears to be misused. Hence, the Central Government may consider not releasing funds for the Home Guards in a State where the provisions of the Act are not being strictly followed.
State Of Rajasthan vs Netrapal & Ors

Brief facts of the case are that during the night intervening 25th and 26th November, 1987, a report was lodged by one Ramji Lal (PW 1) at Police Station, Sever that a dacoity had been committed at Village Samarpur. It was alleged that at about 12.00 night, while he was sleeping in his room with his father Dwarika Prasad and younger brother Satish, 10-15 dacoits armed with lathis and guns came to his room and hit them with lathis and looted movable properties, ornaments of gold and silver from the houses of Ramji Lal, Chandan, Gopal and Ramsukh. In the incident, they shot at Dwarka Prasad on chest who died. Ramji Lal, PW 1 also stated before the Police that he could recognize the accused in the electric light. On the report a case was registered and the police visited the place of incident. Police recovered 3 empties of .12 bore, 3 empties of .315 bore and a glass piece of .315 bore from the spot. On November 27, 1987, Ramsukh, Ramji Lal and Chandan submitted a list of articles looted from their houses. The accused persons were arrested by the Police. The Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Bharatput put them to identification by the witnesses. The witnesses identified them. The seized and recovered articles were also put to identification and they were also identified by the persons to whom they belonged.

In our considered opinion, the above remark was uncalled for, to say the least. There is nothing on record to show that the ornaments were shown to prosecution witnesses or to any other person. Moreover, it will be too much to impute motive either in the Magistrate or in the clerk of the Court without there being anything on record.

(emphasis supplied) [see also Samya Sett v. Shambhu Sarkar, (2005) 6 SCC 767; V.G. Ramachandran, 'Law of Writs', Revised by Justice C.K. Thakker and M.C. Thakker, 6th Edn., 2006; Vol. 2; pp. 1788-91] In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our considered view, neither the remarks made by the High Court against prosecution witnesses were justified nor the language used was called for. The observations were also not necessary for determining the question in controversy. They are, therefore, ordered to be deleted. Having considered the facts and circumstances in their entirety, we are of the view that the High Court was not wrong in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the accused were the persons who had committed the dacoity and, hence, they could not be convicted. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
S.N.S. (Minerals) Ltd. And Anr vs Union Of India And Ors

Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the Review Petition filed by the appellants. This is in essence the second journey of the appellants in respect of a Writ Petition (W.P.No.522/90) filed before the High Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 3.3.1994. The same was filed for quashing the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 i.e. Superintendent (Preventive) Central Excise, Indore. During the pendency of the petition, orders were passed quantifying the liability of appellant No.1 for imposition of penalty. These orders were challenged in the writ petition by amending the same. The High Court quashed the orders so far as they related to imposition of penalty. Questioning the correctness of the order an appeal was filed before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 16.4.2002. Basically, two stands were taken in the appeal. This Court did not interfere with the order of the High Court on the aspect of manufacture. The residual argument was that since the High Court had quashed the penalty imposed by the Collector, Central Excise by taking a view that the appellants were under a bona fide belief that they were not liable to pay excise duty on limestone chips, the High Court ought to have struck down the demand of duty based on Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act'). This Court dealt with that aspect of the challenge in the following words:

The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.