|
Advanced Search Options
Indian Laws - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 68 of 68 Records
-
2013 (10) TMI 184 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maintainability of Writ Petition – Availability of Alternate Remedy – Licences for Retail Sale of Foreign Liquor (Excluding Beer and Wine) Rules, 2001, has been cancelled. - Held that:- A perusal of the Section 11 shows that against the orders passed by the Collector, Appeal lies to the Excise Commissioner under sub-section (1) of the said Section - It is thus, evident that against the Order dated 3rd November, 2012, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing Appeal before the Excise Commissioner and thereafter a further remedy of filing Revision before the State Government - Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in the present case - it will be appropriate that the petitioner be relegated to the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 11 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 - The Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner, and the same is dismissed on the said ground – Decided against Petitioner.
-
2013 (10) TMI 127 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Erection of telecommunication tower - Obstruction in construction - Held that:- None of the respondents have filed any counter affidavit in this writ petition. The matter was heard. Whether the commissioning of a telecommunication tower would affect the health of the people of the area is an issue which is still being debated among the scientist communities all over the world. This Court has, in two decisions, held that there is no evidence that the same will affect the health of the people. Whether it will affect the health of the people or not, it is an undisputed fact that we are bound to live for the rest of our lives with mobile phones in our pockets. The statute prescribes certain licenses and permits for erecting telecommunication towers. All what we can ensure is that such requirements are complied with in the erection and operation of the tower. In the above circumstances, if the petitioner has obtained necessary permits and licenses, nobody can prevent them from erecting and commissioning telecommunication towers. Therefore, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to see that the petitioner is not prevented from commissioning the telecommunication tower already erected, if they have all the permits and licences to operate the telecommunication tower - Decided in favour of appellant.
-
2013 (10) TMI 126 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Relocation of the Liquor Shop - Rule 5 sub-rule (4) of U.P. Number and Location of Excise Shops (Fourth Amendment ) Rules, 2008 – Held that:- In order to respect the public sentiment which was expressed by the flat owners of the building, who have objections to the location of the shop an inspection was made - The District Excise Officer was, thereafter, directed to re-locate any shop - The license of the shop is renewed every year - Every renewal amounts to fresh grant and thus, the restriction applicable under sub rule (4) of Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules in respect of the distance namely, 100 Mts. from the residential locality, would be attracted in the present case - The District Excise Officer, thus did not allow the renewal of the petitioner's shop close to the building.
There was no error in the order of the District Excise Officer, Allahabad, directing the shop to be re-located by the order which is within the parameters of law - The public interest is an important factor for relocation of country liquor shop - No one has a fundamental right to trade in country liquor which is by its nature a dangerous and obnoxious trade - The country liquor shop in a residential locality causes bad odour, makes an entire area unhygienic and attracts bad elements of the area to assemble at odd hours - The families living in neighborhood with children and women find it difficult to live with a country liquor shop in the vicinity - The District Excise Officer did not commit any illegality in accepting in public protest - He has not cancelled the license - The petitioner has only been asked to relocate the shop – Decided against Petitioner.
-
2013 (10) TMI 125 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Right to information - Appellant sought list of officers empanelled for appointment as member C.B.E. & C. for the year 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 - Appellant further sought the inspection of all records, documents, files, notesheets, correspondence relating to the selection and appointment of members to the C.B.E. & C. from the year 2009 to 2011 - Delay in reports - Held that:- Mr. V. Sreekumar, CPIO has prima facie caused a delay of more than 100 days in providing the information to the appellant. A separate show cause notice u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act would be issued to Mr. V. Sreekumar, who was the CPIO at the relevant time asking him to show-cause why a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed upon him - Decided in favour of appellant.
-
2013 (10) TMI 87 - DELHI HIGH COURT
De-Registration and Withdrawal of Registration - Deputy General Manager of PHHL directed de-registration of the petitioner company from the list of suppliers of PHHL and banned it from doing business dealings in future with PHHL - Held that:- the petitioner has not disclosed the true state of affairs to the Court since it took the stand that it has no linkage with the Indian Company whereas the true state of affairs as reflected in the statement made by Mr. Santosh Kumar and various documents sent by the petitioner company to PHHL reflect otherwise and clearly indicate a close connection between the two companies. - petition dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 86 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Right to information - Appellant sought information relating to action taken against two specified pre-shipment agencies as recommended by Customs Excise Appellate Tribunal in its order in case [2011 (4) TMI 228 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] - Exemption u/s 8(1)(d) - Held that:- The Commission is not in agreement with the decision of the CPIO to correlate the information sought at point (a) & (d) to the exemption clause 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, 2005. If certain action has been taken against any such pre-inspection agency for not doing their work properly such information ought to be in public domain once the investigation/inquiry in relation to the same is over therefore this information is to be provided to the appellant. However, in relation to the complaints/references in relation to which investigation/inquiry is still pending, the name, complaint no. and date of complaint shall be provided as premature disclosure of information may effect the process of investigation - such information is expected to be a part of the record of the public authority - order of the first appellate authority should not be merely a cryptic order, the first appellate authority is bound to pass a speaking order giving reasoning behind the order - Decision in favour of appellant.
-
2013 (10) TMI 48 - COMPETITION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Doctrine of legitimate expectation - direction of purchase the air tickets from specified airlines only - Abuse of dominant position - it was averred that the Government had position of dominance and the same was being used only in favour of Balmer Lawrie & Co. and M/s. Ashok Travels & Tours Ltd. thereby depriving the other travel agents who were members of the informant/appellant's business. It was pointed out that because of the aforementioned office memorandum the Government officials would be compelled to purchase the tickets only through the aforementioned agencies and thereby there would be creation of monopoly in favour of these two agencies and thus the competition in that behalf would be adversely affected.
Held that:- Insofar as the contention that the Government Memorandum was in the nature of anti-competitive agreement, the finding of the CCI is correct that the said Government Memorandum does not amount to an agreement. It is an internal administrative decision to deal with a particular agency in the matter of securing air tickets. In our opinion, it cannot come within the mischief of any of the sub-section of Section 3 of the Act.
In fact no particular ticketing agency could claim any right in the matter of dealing with the Government. The Government like any other consumer has a right to deal with the agency that it likes.
An administrative decision to avail of the services of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the first place is not an agreement with Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and secondly it is not a trading activity. It is also not distributing state largesse. At any rate, our task in this Tribunal would only be limited to decide as to whether the action on the part of the Government in passing the Government Memorandum is in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act. - decided against the appellants.
-
2013 (10) TMI 39 - CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Right to information - Incomplete and incorrect information in reply - Held that:- CESTAT, has not cited any of the exemption provisions of the RTI Act for not disclosing the information to the appellant, neither has the CPIO furnished any reasons for holding that the 3rd party information cannot be provided. The FAA has quoted the provision of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act without, however, giving reasons as to how the information if disclosed would impede the process of investigation/enquiry or apprehension or prosecution of offenders - Shri Victor James, the then CPIO/Under Secretary, has prima facie provided misleading information to the appellant, at Clause (f) of his reply dated 16-9-2011 that no such report of the Enquiry Committee headed by Dr. C. Satapathy has been received in the Department of Revenue, whereas Registrar, CESTAT by his letter dated 18-8-2011 has already forwarded a copy of the said report to the Department of Revenue. A separate show-cause notice u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act would be issued to the Shri Victor James, the then CPIO/Under Secretary asking him to show-cause why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for providing misleading information to the appellant- Decided in favour of appellant.
|
