|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 144 Records
-
1993 (5) TMI 202
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The core legal questions considered in this judgment are: - Whether the petitioners, casual laborers of South Eastern Railway retrenched between 1975-78, are entitled to re-employment as a matter of law.
- Whether the petitioners have lost their right to re-employment due to the delay in asserting their claims.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Entitlement to Re-employment - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The petitioners' claim is based on circulars issued by the Railway Board in 1981 and judgments by the Supreme Court in 1985 and 1987, which directed the preparation of a scheme for the absorption of casual laborers according to their seniority.
- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged the recognition of the right of casual laborers employed in projects to be re-employed in railways by both the Railways and the Court. However, the petitioners failed to take timely steps to enforce their claim.
- Key evidence and findings: The petitioners made a vague representation in 1990 without providing material particulars or evidence that they were covered by the scheme framed by the Railways.
- Application of law to facts: The Court noted that a writ is issued in favor of a person who has some right, not for a roving inquiry. The delay in asserting their claims deprived the petitioners of the remedy available in law.
- Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioners' counsel urged the Court to allow them to produce identity cards for verification, but the Court found it too dangerous to permit such an exercise due to the potential for maneuvering.
- Conclusions: The Court concluded that, in the absence of positive material to establish the petitioners' employment and retrenchment, it would not be proper to direct the opposite parties to verify the petitioners' claims.
Issue 2: Loss of Right Due to Delay - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principle that delay itself can deprive a person of their remedy in law was considered.
- Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that, without any fresh cause of action or legislation, a person who loses their remedy by lapse of time also loses their right.
- Key evidence and findings: The petitioners did not approach the authorities or the Court until 1990, more than 15 years after their alleged retrenchment.
- Application of law to facts: The Court found that accepting the petitioners' prayer would deprive others who have become eligible and entitled to claim employment in the meantime.
- Treatment of competing arguments: The Court considered the possibility of taking a sympathetic view but found insufficient evidence to support the petitioners' claims.
- Conclusions: The Court concluded that the delay in asserting their claims resulted in the loss of any right the petitioners may have had.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "A writ is issued by this Court in favour of a person who has some right. And not for sake of roving enquiry leaving scope for maneuvering."
- Core principles established: The Court established that delay in asserting a claim can result in the loss of both the remedy and the right itself. A writ cannot be issued on vague claims without material evidence.
- Final determinations on each issue: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, concluding that the petitioners failed to establish their entitlement to re-employment and had lost any right due to delay.
-
1993 (5) TMI 201
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of delegation of detention powers under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 (PASA).
2. Definition and applicability of "property grabber" under PASA.
3. Retrospective application of PASA.
4. Legality of the detention orders based on procedural compliance with PASA and constitutional mandates.
5. Timeliness and consideration of the detenue's representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
Issue-wise Analysis:
1. Legality of Delegation of Detention Powers:
The appellants challenged the delegation of detention powers under Section 3(2) of PASA, arguing that it constituted a blanket delegation without the necessary satisfaction of the State Government, potentially leading to abuse by District Magistrates or Commissioners of Police. The court upheld the delegation, stating that PASA is a valid law made under the concurrent list, designed to address anti-social activities prejudicial to public order. The court emphasized that the delegation was necessary for swift action by local authorities to maintain public order and was not illegal or invalid.
2. Definition and Applicability of "Property Grabber":
The court examined the definition of "property grabber" under Section 2(h) of PASA, which includes individuals who illegally take possession of government or private lands, construct unauthorized structures, or engage in related activities. The court found that the appellants' actions of selling government land through fraudulent means, despite a status quo order, constituted property grabbing. The court noted that such activities adversely affected public order, justifying the detention under PASA.
3. Retrospective Application of PASA:
The appellants contended that PASA could not be applied retrospectively to actions taken before its enactment. The court rejected this argument, clarifying that PASA addresses ongoing anti-social activities affecting public order. The court emphasized that the appellants' continued illegal activities and disregard for legal orders justified the application of PASA, irrespective of when the initial acts occurred.
4. Legality of the Detention Orders:
The court scrutinized the procedural compliance with PASA, particularly the requirement for the State Government's approval of detention orders within 12 days. The court found no evidence that the State Government approved the detention orders within the mandated period, rendering the orders invalid. The court highlighted that the failure to comply with this procedural requirement resulted in the lapse of the detention orders after 12 days.
5. Timeliness and Consideration of the Detenue's Representation:
The appellants argued that their representations against the detention orders were not considered promptly, violating Article 22(5) of the Constitution. The court agreed, noting that the State Government delayed considering the representations until after receiving the Advisory Board's opinion, which was contrary to established legal principles. The court reiterated that the government must independently and promptly consider detenue representations, irrespective of the Advisory Board's proceedings. The delay and lack of timely consideration constituted a breach of constitutional rights, rendering the detention orders illegal.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found procedural lapses in the execution of detention orders under PASA and a violation of constitutional rights due to delayed consideration of representations. Consequently, the court declared the detention orders illegal and directed the release of the detenues, except for the absconding Prashant Manubhai Vora.
-
1993 (5) TMI 200
Issues Involved:
1. Conditions in prisons.
2. Overcrowding and classification of prisoners.
3. Work culture and wages for prisoners.
4. Corruption among jail staff.
5. Facilities and amenities in prisons.
6. Legal representation and parole policy.
Summary:
1. Conditions in Prisons:
The case was initiated based on a petition by a convict prisoner alleging sub-human conditions in Thiruvananthapuram Central Jail. The petitioner highlighted issues like the liberty enjoyed by certain convicts, the presence of narcotic drugs, connivance of jail officials, and rampant homosexuality and physical assaults. The petitioner sought remedial measures to prevent institutionalized crime.
2. Overcrowding and Classification of Prisoners:
The judgment noted the problem of overcrowding, with prisons housing more inmates than their capacity, leading to unwholesome consequences like fights, sexual abuses, and prison riots. The Kerala Prison Manual and various committee reports emphasized the need for segregation and classification of prisoners to prevent first offenders from being influenced by hardened criminals. The court directed the State to build sufficient prisons, implement effective segregation, and ensure proper classification of prisoners.
3. Work Culture and Wages for Prisoners:
The judgment stressed the importance of introducing a work culture in prisons to provide therapy against idleness, enable prisoners to earn wages, and support their families. The court directed the State to pay reasonable wages to prisoners, consider registering societies for managing economic activities in jails, and create a work force for public works. The court also suggested avoiding short-term imprisonment and substituting it with free work or regulated wages.
4. Corruption Among Jail Staff:
The judgment highlighted corruption among jail staff, as observed in the Supreme Court case Sunil Batra, where certain prisoners enjoyed luxuries with the connivance of jail staff. The court directed the State to ensure that short-term appointments of prison staff are not made and that adequate trained staff is provided in jails.
5. Facilities and Amenities in Prisons:
The judgment noted the need for better jails with educational and recreational facilities, proper staff amenities, and improved conditions of food. The court directed the State to provide necessary facilities for jail staff, segregate civil and military prisoners from criminal convicts, and supply sanitary napkins to female prisoners.
6. Legal Representation and Parole Policy:
The judgment addressed complaints about prisoners being unaware of their legal representation and the need for a rational parole policy. The court directed the Registry to provide a meeting place in the High Court premises for prisoners to meet their counsel and suggested evolving a rational parole policy based on sound considerations.
Conclusion:
The court issued comprehensive directions to the State to address the various issues in prisons, emphasizing the need for humane conditions, effective segregation, reasonable wages, and proper facilities. The court also appreciated the contributions of Shri James Vincent and Shri Mohan C. Menon in assisting the court.
-
1993 (5) TMI 199
Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in removal of Pradhan under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.
Analysis:
1. The petition involves a challenge to the removal of a Pradhan under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, based on the violation of principles of natural justice. The Petitioner argued that the removal order was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing, as mandated by the Act.
2. The Petitioner contended that the order of removal did not comply with the First proviso to Section 95(1) of the Act, which requires giving the person concerned two opportunities to show cause against the proposed action. The Petitioner cited a Division Bench case to support the argument that two opportunities should be provided - first during the enquiry stage and second when the authority decides on the action.
3. The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that in the case of a Pradhan, if charges are proven, the only course of action is removal, and the notice given at the initiation of proceedings suffices as the opportunity of hearing. The Respondent relied on a Full Bench case to support this position.
4. The Court analyzed the facts and found that the Respondent did not provide a show cause notice or a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner after receiving the enquiry report, as required by the Act. The Court referred to a Division Bench decision which emphasized the necessity of two opportunities for a Pradhan in such cases.
5. The Court rejected the argument that the Full Bench case conflicted with the Division Bench decision cited by the Petitioner. It held that the legislative intent behind the proviso to Section 95(1) was to ensure two opportunities for the Pradhan before removal, considering the importance of the Pradhan's role in village administration.
6. Ultimately, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the impugned orders of removal, and directed the Authority to take action against the Petitioner in accordance with the law after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. No costs were awarded in this case.
-
1993 (5) TMI 198
Issues Involved:
1. Inter se seniority of the appellant and respondent No. 3 in the Punjab Superior Judicial Service.
2. Application and interpretation of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963, and subsequent government orders regarding reservation for Scheduled Castes.
3. Clarification and implementation of reservation policies for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs.
4. Determination of the correct placement of the respondent No. 3 in the seniority list.
5. Effect of clarificatory orders on the retrospective application of reservation policies.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Inter se Seniority of the Appellant and Respondent No. 3:
The primary issue revolves around the seniority between the appellant, a general category candidate, and respondent No. 3, a Mazhabi Sikh, both appointed to the Punjab Superior Judicial Service on May 26, 1986. The appellant was placed at Point No. 8, and respondent No. 3 was placed at Point No. 9 in the merit list.
2. Application and Interpretation of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963:
Recruitment to the Service is governed by the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963. Rule 8-A, inserted by notification on June 14, 1977, mandated the application of state government instructions regarding reservations for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. The relevant orders include:
- Letter dated June 6, 1974, increasing the reservation percentage.
- Circular dated November 19, 1974, regarding the carry-forward of reservations.
- Letter dated May 5, 1975, specifying that 50% of the reserved vacancies for Scheduled Castes should be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs.
- Letter dated April 8, 1980, clarifying the implementation of the May 5, 1975, instructions.
3. Clarification and Implementation of Reservation Policies:
The court examined the instructions regarding the reservation for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, particularly the letters dated May 5, 1975, and April 8, 1980. The latter clarified that 50% of the reserved vacancies should be offered to Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, with specific points in the roster allocated to them.
4. Determination of the Correct Placement in the Seniority List:
The High Court initially revised the seniority list, placing respondent No. 3 above the appellant based on the instructions from May 5, 1975, and April 8, 1980. However, the Supreme Court found that the vacancy at Point No. 7 was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate other than Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, thus assigning it to Shri G.S. Samra. Respondent No. 3, being a Mazhabi Sikh, could only be placed at Point No. 9.
5. Effect of Clarificatory Orders on Retrospective Application:
The court held that the clarifications provided in the letter dated April 8, 1980, were retrospective and should be read as part of the instructions from May 5, 1975. This meant that all appointments post-May 5, 1975, should adhere to these instructions. Consequently, the appointment of Shri Balwant Rai in 1979 (a Scheduled Caste other than Balmikis or Mazhabi Sikhs) was considered under these rules, and the vacancy at Point No. 1, initially reserved for Balmikis or Mazhabi Sikhs, was not carried forward.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It declared that respondent No. 3 should be treated as appointed against the vacancy at Point No. 9 in the roster, placing him below the appellant in the seniority list. The seniority list was ordered to be revised accordingly, granting the appellant any consequential benefits. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
-
1993 (5) TMI 197
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme.
2. Requirement of documentary proof for pension claims.
3. Timeliness of applications for pension.
4. Retrospective effect of pension benefits.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Eligibility for Pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme:
The petitioners, comprising some freedom fighters and dependents of others, sought pension under the Freedom Fighters Pension Scheme, 1972. The Scheme, introduced by the Government of India on the 25th Anniversary of Independence, provided pensions to freedom fighters and their families. Initially, the pension was restricted to those with an annual income not exceeding Rs. 5000. However, from 1st August 1980, the Scheme was extended to all freedom fighters irrespective of income, and the pension amount was increased. The eligibility criteria included a minimum imprisonment of six months, with certain relaxations for women and Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe members.
2. Requirement of Documentary Proof for Pension Claims:
The Scheme specified the documents required to support pension claims. The Court acknowledged that it was not its function to scrutinize these documents and directed the Government to do so. The Court emphasized that the Government should verify the authenticity of the documents and ascertain the eligibility of the claimants.
3. Timeliness of Applications for Pension:
The Government argued that the petitioners had filed their applications after the prescribed date. The Court rejected this contention, noting the practical difficulties faced by freedom fighters and their families in remote areas. The Court highlighted the genuine intent of the Scheme to honor and assist freedom fighters, stating that the prescribed date should be viewed as an administrative convenience rather than a rigid deadline. The Court directed that applications should be accepted irrespective of the date of submission.
4. Retrospective Effect of Pension Benefits:
The Government contended that pension should be granted only from the date the required proof was submitted. The Court partially accepted this argument, acknowledging the difficulties in obtaining old documents. The Court ruled that the date of application, even if unaccompanied by proof, should be considered the date of claim. However, the Court decided that pension benefits should not be granted retrospectively from an earlier date but only from the date of application. The Court reasoned that the Scheme aimed to honor and assist freedom fighters, not to compensate them retrospectively.
Conclusion:
The Court directed the Government to:
- Accept applications irrespective of the submission date.
- Scrutinize and dispose of applications within three months.
- Pay pension from the date of the original application, subject to the submission of requisite proof.
The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1993 (5) TMI 196
Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of the requisition of State Bank of India employees for election duty.
2. Interpretation of "local authority" under Section 159 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
3. Authority of the District Election Officer to appoint Presiding Officers and Polling Officers under Section 26 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
4. Constitutional provisions regarding the requisition of services for election duties.
5. Validity of the instructions issued by the Election Commission concerning the requisition of bank employees for election duties.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality and Validity of the Requisition of State Bank of India Employees for Election Duty:
The petitioners challenged the requisition of State Bank of India (SBI) employees for election duty, arguing that no constitutional provision or law authorizes the District Election Officer to requisition the services of bank employees for election duty. The respondents contended that the Representation of People Act, 1951, particularly Sections 26 and 159, authorized such requisition. The court held that SBI employees are not considered "local authority" employees under Section 159 of the Act, and thus their services cannot be requisitioned for election duties.
2. Interpretation of "Local Authority" under Section 159 of the Representation of People Act, 1951:
The court examined whether the State Bank of India qualifies as a "local authority" under Section 159 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The term "local authority" is defined in Section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and includes municipal committees, district boards, and bodies of port commissioners. The court concluded that SBI does not meet this definition, as it is a statutory corporation engaged in banking business and does not possess the attributes of a local authority, such as control over a municipal or local fund.
3. Authority of the District Election Officer to Appoint Presiding Officers and Polling Officers under Section 26 of the Representation of People Act, 1951:
The court analyzed the scope of Section 26 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, which allows the District Election Officer to appoint Presiding Officers and Polling Officers. The court held that this power is limited to appointing individuals whose services can be requisitioned under Article 324(6) of the Constitution and Section 159 of the Act, meaning employees of the Central or State Government and local authorities. The court rejected the argument that the District Election Officer has the authority to appoint any person, including private individuals, as Presiding or Polling Officers.
4. Constitutional Provisions Regarding the Requisition of Services for Election Duties:
Article 324(6) of the Constitution mandates that the President or the Governor, upon request from the Election Commission, must make available necessary staff for election duties. The court emphasized that this provision applies to employees of the Central or State Government and local authorities, not to employees of statutory corporations like SBI. The court also noted that the power to impose compulsory service for public purposes under Article 23(2) of the Constitution is vested in the State and not in the District Election Officer.
5. Validity of the Instructions Issued by the Election Commission Concerning the Requisition of Bank Employees for Election Duties:
The court examined the instructions issued by the Election Commission, which included requisitioning employees from statutory bodies and public sector undertakings for election duties. The court held that these instructions are inconsistent with the constitutional provisions and the Representation of People Act, 1951. The court emphasized that the Election Commission's instructions cannot override statutory provisions and that the power to requisition services for election duties is limited to employees of the Central or State Government and local authorities.
Conclusion:
The court quashed the letters appointing SBI employees as Presiding Officers and Polling Officers and directed the respondents not to requisition the services of SBI employees for election work under Section 26 of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The court held that the District Election Officer does not have the authority to requisition the services of SBI employees, as they are not considered employees of a "local authority" under the Act.
-
1993 (5) TMI 195
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the homestead land of a landholder can be taken into consideration for the purpose of computation of the ceiling area under Section 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Facts and Background:
A ceiling proceeding was initiated against the petitioner's family, including lands within the Gaya Municipality where a pucca house exists. The petitioner contended that some portions of the lands are lying vacant and not used for agricultural purposes. The matter was previously remitted to the Collector to determine if the land was within Gaya Municipality, which was confirmed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector.
2. Preliminary Issue:
The Collector decided that in view of Section 2(f) of the Act, the homestead land of the petitioner would come within its purview. The petitioner's revision application against this order was dismissed summarily.
3. Petitioner's Argument:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the Act's object and purport indicate that land within a municipal area used for residential purposes should not be included in the ceiling area computation. It was emphasized that the lands are not used for agricultural purposes, and the term 'homestead' was deleted from Section 4 by Bihar Act 1 of 1973, indicating legislative intent to exclude such lands from ceiling computation.
4. State's Argument:
The State's counsel contended that homestead land falls within the purview of Clause (d) of Section 4, supported by a Division Bench decision in Mahabir Prasad v. State of Bihar.
5. Interpretation of 'Land':
Section 2(f) defines 'land' to include homestead land. However, the court noted that the definition is not a positive enactment and must be interpreted in context.
6. Legislative Amendments:
The original Act included surplus homestead land in Clause (e) of Section 4, but Bihar Act 1 of 1973 deleted the term 'homestead'. Subsequent amendments did not reintroduce the term, indicating legislative intent to exclude homestead land from ceiling area computation.
7. Charging Section Analysis:
Section 4, being the charging section, does not include homestead land in its clauses. The court emphasized that legislative intent, as evident from the deletion of 'homestead', must be respected, and such land cannot be included in the ceiling area.
8. Expropriatory Legislation:
The Act being expropriatory must be strictly construed. The court referred to various precedents underscoring that a statute's intent must be derived from its language and context.
9. Binding Precedents:
The court held that the decision in Mahabir Prasad's case is not a binding precedent as it did not consider subsequent amendments to Section 4. Decisions rendered without considering statutory provisions or earlier decisions do not create binding precedents.
10. Conclusion:
The court concluded that the homestead land of the landholder does not come within the purview of Section 4 for the purpose of determining the ceiling area. The application was allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed.
Separate Judgment:
A.N. Chaturvedi, J. concurred with the judgment.
Final Order:
The application is allowed, and the impugned orders are quashed.
-
1993 (5) TMI 194
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an agreement of lease between the landlord and the tenant for letting and occupation of a building in contravention of the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is void?
2. Whether the said agreement is enforceable in law and a decree for ejectment of the tenant can be passed in favour of the landlord on the basis thereof?
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Void Nature of the Lease Agreement
The court examined whether an agreement of lease in contravention of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "new Act") is void. The essential components of a valid contract as per Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 were considered, focusing on the lawfulness of the object and the absence of express declaration rendering the agreement void.
The court analyzed Section 23 of the Contract Act, which states that the object of an agreement is unlawful if it is forbidden by law, defeats the provisions of any law, is fraudulent, involves injury to another's person or property, or is opposed to public policy. The court concluded that any agreement violating these conditions is void.
Sections 11, 13, and 17 of the new Act were scrutinized. Section 11 prohibits letting without an allotment order, while Section 13 restricts occupation without such an order. Section 17 outlines the conditions for making an allotment order. The court held that these sections collectively forbid the letting or occupation of a building without an allotment/release order, rendering any such agreement void.
The court referenced several precedents, including Waman Shriniwas Kini v. Ratilal Bhagwandas and Co., Shrikrishna Khanna v. Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur, and Abdul Hameed v. Md. Ishaq, which supported the view that agreements contravening statutory provisions are void.
Issue 2: Enforceability and Decree for Ejectment
The court addressed whether such a void agreement is enforceable and whether a decree for ejectment can be passed based on it. It was established that void agreements have no legal force and cannot create enforceable relationships, rights, or liabilities.
The court referred to the case of Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, which held that neither a landlord can let out premises without an allotment order, nor can anyone occupy it. The court also cited Naveen Chandra Sharma v. 6th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut, which affirmed that letting or occupation without an allotment order is forbidden by law and opposed to public policy.
The court considered the argument that an agreement of lease in contravention of the new Act is not void but unenforceable. However, it was concluded that such agreements are not only void but also unenforceable, as they contravene statutory provisions designed to regulate letting and occupation for public benefit.
Separate Judgments:
- D.S. Sinha, J. delivered the primary judgment, concluding that the agreement of lease is void and unenforceable.
- Sudhir Chandra Verma, J. concurred with the opinion of D.S. Sinha, J.
- S.R. Singh, J. provided additional analysis, reaffirming the void nature of the lease agreement and its unenforceability. He emphasized that the landlord's right to recover possession and claim damages for use and occupation is enforceable, but not the recovery of rent under a void lease.
Conclusion:
1. An agreement of lease between the landlord and the tenant for letting and occupation of a building in contravention of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 is void.
2. The said agreement is unenforceable in law, and no decree for ejectment of the tenant can be passed in favour of the landlord on the basis thereof. However, the landlord may recover possession and claim damages for use and occupation.
-
1993 (5) TMI 193
Issues Involved:
1. Executability of the consent decree.
2. Nature of the eviction clause in the consent decree (whether penal or concessional).
3. Applicability of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
4. Interpretation and application of Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Executability of the Consent Decree:
The appellant (landlord) filed an eviction suit for possession of the premises on the ground of arrears of rent under Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The suit was settled with terms that included a concession for the tenant if arrears were paid by a stipulated date. The tenant failed to comply, leading to execution proceedings by the landlord. The Executing Court issued a warrant for possession, but the Appellate Court dismissed the execution proceedings. The High Court initially remitted the matter back to the Appellate Court, which again dismissed the execution proceedings. The High Court upheld this dismissal, leading the landlord to approach the Supreme Court.
2. Nature of the Eviction Clause in the Consent Decree:
The Supreme Court examined whether the eviction clause in the consent decree was penal in nature or merely a concession. The Court concluded that the terms of the consent decree were clear and unambiguous. The tenant was given a concession that if he paid the arrears by a specified date, the landlord would not execute the decree for possession. This was not penal but a concession. The Court illustrated this with two hypothetical situations, explaining that a clause granting benefit for compliance cannot be considered penal.
3. Applicability of Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:
The High Court had relied on Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to grant relief against forfeiture. However, the Supreme Court clarified that after the enactment of Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents Act, cases governed under this Act must be resolved in accordance with its provisions and not under Section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that the tenant cannot claim double protection by invoking provisions of the Transfer of Property Act when specific rent control legislation applies.
4. Interpretation and Application of Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents Act:
The Supreme Court analyzed Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rents Act, which provides conditions under which a tenant can be evicted for non-payment of rent. The Court noted that the tenant had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 12(3)(b) by not paying the arrears by the stipulated date. The Court held that the tenant's failure to avail of the concession granted in the consent decree resulted in forfeiture, making the eviction clause enforceable.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the First Appellate Court and the High Court, directing the Executing Court to proceed with the execution of the decree. The Court clarified that any subsequent developments creating a new relationship between the parties would not be affected by this order. The appeal was allowed, and no order as to costs was made.
-
1993 (5) TMI 192
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the no-confidence motion.
2. Interpretation of "majority of more than one-half" under Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act.
3. Legislative intent and historical amendments to Section 87-A.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the no-confidence motion:
The petitioner challenged the resolution dated 22nd December 1990, which passed a no-confidence motion against him as the elected President of the Municipal Board, Khatima, district Nainital. The core argument was that the no-confidence motion did not meet the legal requirement of being passed by a majority of more than one-half of the total number of Board members as stipulated under Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act.
2. Interpretation of "majority of more than one-half" under Section 87-A of the U.P. Municipalities Act:
The petitioner's argument was based on the interpretation that the motion required a majority of more than one-half of the total 15 members of the Board, which should be rounded to nine members. The Division Bench referred to previous conflicting judgments on this interpretation:
- In Mangala Prasad Jaiswal v. District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, a Full Bench held that the quorum necessary for passing a motion of no confidence is the total number of members, not just those present. Thus, more than half of 15 members would be nine.
- In Ganesh Prasad Chaturvedi v. District Magistrate, Jalaun, it was held that the words "more than half" were redundant, and a simple majority would suffice. The Division Bench disagreed with this view, emphasizing that the legislature intentionally used "more than half" to mean a majority exceeding half of the total members.
The Court reviewed the legislative history and amendments to Section 87-A, noting that the legislature consistently used "majority" qualified by "more than one-half" or "two-thirds" in various contexts. This indicated a deliberate legislative intent to specify the majority required for such motions.
3. Legislative intent and historical amendments to Section 87-A:
The Court examined the historical amendments to Section 87-A, which oscillated between requiring a "majority of more than one-half" and a "majority of two-thirds". The repeated use of these terms was not redundant but deliberate to specify the required majority. The Court cited several legal definitions of "majority" and concluded that it means any number greater than half of the total, not necessarily rounded figures.
The Court held that in the context of a Board with 15 members, eight votes constitute a majority of more than one-half. Thus, the no-confidence motion passed with eight votes was valid.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the no-confidence motion against the petitioner was validly passed by a majority of more than one-half of the total members of the Board. The Court emphasized that legislative terms like "more than one-half" are deliberate and not redundant, and should be interpreted to reflect the legislature's intent. The judgment clarified that in a Board of 15 members, eight votes are sufficient to pass a no-confidence motion, aligning with the legislative requirement of a majority of more than one-half.
-
1993 (5) TMI 191
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the child under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.
2. Admissibility and necessity of a blood group test to determine paternity.
3. Legal provisions and precedents regarding blood tests in paternity disputes.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legitimacy of the Child under Section 112 of the Evidence Act:
The court emphasized that Section 112 of the Evidence Act provides a strong presumption of legitimacy for a child born during the continuance of a valid marriage. The section states that if a person is born during the lawful wedlock, it is conclusive proof of legitimacy unless non-access between the parents can be proven. The court noted that this presumption is based on the maxim "pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant" (he is the father whom the marriage indicates), and it places the burden of disproving legitimacy on the party challenging it.
2. Admissibility and Necessity of a Blood Group Test to Determine Paternity:
The appellant sought a blood group test to disprove paternity, arguing that medical advancements make such tests reliable. However, the court held that blood tests are not conclusive of paternity and cannot be ordered as a matter of course. The court referenced various precedents, including the cases of Polavarapu Venkteswarlu and Vasu v. Santha, which established that blood tests cannot be compelled without consent and that they are not sufficient to override the presumption under Section 112.
3. Legal Provisions and Precedents Regarding Blood Tests in Paternity Disputes:
The court reviewed the legal framework and precedents in India and other jurisdictions, including England and the United States. It noted that while blood tests are used in paternity cases in other countries, Indian law does not have specific provisions for compelling such tests. The court cited several cases, such as Hargavind Soni v. Ramdulari and Raghunath v. Shardabai, which highlighted the limitations and legal constraints on ordering blood tests. The court also emphasized that no one can be compelled to provide a blood sample, and adverse inferences from refusal are limited.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant's application for a blood test was primarily an attempt to avoid paying maintenance and lacked a substantial basis. It upheld the High Court's decision, which confirmed the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's order rejecting the blood test application. The court reiterated that:
1. Courts in India cannot order blood tests as a matter of course.
2. Applications for blood tests cannot be entertained for roving inquiries.
3. A strong prima facie case of non-access must be established to dispel the presumption under Section 112.
4. The consequences of ordering a blood test, such as potentially branding a child as illegitimate and the mother as unchaste, must be carefully considered.
5. No one can be compelled to give a blood sample for analysis.
The court dismissed the criminal appeal and allowed the second respondent to withdraw the maintenance amount without furnishing any security. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
-
1993 (5) TMI 190
Issues Involved:
1. Liability of a Director under Section 14A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
2. Definition and scope of the term "employer" under the Act.
3. Compliance requirements under the Act and the Schemes.
4. Validity of the prosecution against the Director based on the allegations in the complaint.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Liability of a Director under Section 14A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952:
The primary issue in these appeals is whether a Director, who is neither an occupier nor a manager, can be prosecuted under Section 14A of the Act. The court held that Section 14A extends liability to "every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company." This includes Directors who are declared as responsible for the conduct of the business in the statutory forms and documents submitted by the company.
2. Definition and Scope of the Term "Employer" under the Act:
Section 2(e) of the Act defines "employer" in relation to a factory as "the owner or occupier of the factory, including the Agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier, and where a person has been named as a Manager of the factory under Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948, the person so named." The court noted that the definition is inclusive and extends to anyone who has ultimate control over the affairs of the factory. This broad definition is intended to ensure compliance with the welfare objectives of the Act.
3. Compliance Requirements under the Act and the Schemes:
The Act and the Schemes mandate the employer to deduct contributions from employees' salaries and deposit them into the provident fund account. Specific provisions such as Section 6, para 30, and para 36A of the Schemes outline the responsibilities of the employer. Para 36A requires the employer to furnish particulars of ownership, including details of directors and other persons in charge of the factory. The court emphasized that these compliance requirements are mandatory and non-compliance attracts penal action under Section 14A.
4. Validity of the Prosecution against the Director Based on the Allegations in the Complaint:
The appellant argued that the complaints did not contain specific averments making him responsible for the management of the factory. However, the court found that the complaints specifically stated that the appellant, along with other Directors, was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the establishment. The court held that necessary allegations constituting the offence were made out in the complaint, and therefore, the prosecution against the appellant was valid. The court also distinguished this case from previous judgments, noting that the specific statutory declarations and responsibilities outlined in Form 5A and para 36A supported the prosecution.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeals, holding that the appellant, being declared as one of the persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the establishment, was validly prosecuted for non-compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Schemes. The judgment underscores the broad scope of liability under Section 14A and the inclusive definition of "employer" to ensure compliance with the welfare objectives of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
-
1993 (5) TMI 189
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sanction of the Central Government is necessary u/s 188 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for prosecuting offences committed outside India.
2. Whether the offence of conspiracy is a continuing offence and can be tried in India if part of the conspiracy occurred in India.
3. Jurisdiction of Indian courts to try offences committed partly in India and partly outside India.
Issue 1: Necessity of Sanction u/s 188 CrPC
The primary question is whether the sanction of the Central Government as required under the proviso to Section 188 of the CrPC is necessary. Section 188 states that offences committed outside India by a citizen of India can be dealt with as if they were committed within India, but they cannot be inquired into or tried in India without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The court held that sanction under Section 188 is not a condition precedent to take cognizance of the offence. If necessary, it could be obtained before the trial begins. Since the conspiracy was initially hatched at Chandigarh and continued, there is no need to obtain sanction from the Central Government.
Issue 2: Conspiracy as a Continuing Offence
The court examined whether conspiracy is a continuing offence. It was held that conspiracy to commit a crime is punishable as a substantive offence and every individual offence committed pursuant to the conspiracy is separate and distinct. The agreement does not end with its making but endures till it is accomplished or abandoned. Therefore, being a continuing offence, if any acts or omissions which constitute an offence are done in India or outside its territory, the conspirators continuing to be parties to the conspiracy would obviate the need to obtain sanction of the Central Government.
Issue 3: Jurisdiction of Indian Courts
The court discussed that judicial power extends to the punishment of all offences against the municipal laws of the State by whomsoever committed within the territory. It also has the power to punish such offences wherever committed by its citizen. The court held that the jurisdiction to inquire or try vests under Section 177 in the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed. It is the commission of the offence and not the residence of the accused which is decisive of jurisdiction. Therefore, the court at Chandigarh has jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy, even though part of the conspiracy and overt acts took place at Dubai.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and it was held that the prosecution of the appellant under Section 120B read with Sections 420 and 471 IPC can proceed without the previous sanction of the Central Government. The conspiracy was considered a continuing offence, and the Indian courts have jurisdiction to try the offences committed in pursuance of the conspiracy.
-
1993 (5) TMI 188
Issues:
- Validity of title transfer by a co-owner in exclusive occupation of specific land portion
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a Second Appeal questioning the validity of a co-owner transferring title in a specific portion of land not in their exclusive occupation. The plaintiff filed a suit for possession of a land portion acquired through a sale deed, alleging dispossession by the defendants. The defendants claimed possession through an oral agreement with a co-owner, raising a residential house. The trial court granted possession to the plaintiff, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision, finding the defendants in lawful occupation pre-sale. The judgment cited the importance of possession in co-ownership scenarios, emphasizing joint possession principles. The court referred to a Division Bench of Punjab High Court's principles on co-ownership rights, highlighting the need for actual possession for valid title transfer.
The court analyzed the evidence, noting the defendants' prior possession and construction on the land before the sale deed. It highlighted the plaintiff's admission of defendants' occupation at the sale date, supporting the finding that the co-owner transferring the title was not in actual possession. Referring to legal principles, the court emphasized that a co-owner not in exclusive possession cannot transfer valid title to a specific land portion. The judgment cited a Delhi High Court decision affirming the need for defined possession in joint family property for partition. Ultimately, the court held that the plaintiff's remedy lies in seeking compensation or a share in partition from the co-owner but not in claiming possession against the defendants.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that a co-owner lacking exclusive possession cannot transfer valid title to a specific land portion. The judgment highlighted the importance of possession in co-ownership disputes and clarified the appropriate remedies for parties in such scenarios. The decision underscored the need for actual possession for valid title transfer and emphasized the principles governing co-ownership rights in joint property.
-
1993 (5) TMI 187
Issues:
1. Bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The prosecution alleged that a consignment imported by a Diplomat contained contraband gold, leading to the recovery of gold biscuits. Statements of individuals involved, including the petitioner and Trilochan Singh Khurana, were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, implicating them in smuggling activities.
2. The petitioner admitted to smuggling gold biscuits for a Dubai contact, receiving commissions, and involving in multiple smuggling instances. Trilochan Singh Khurana corroborated these details, indicating a systematic operation.
3. The defense argued that the statements were retracted due to coercion and physical torture by DRI officers. Citing previous judgments, they contended that retracted confessions are not substantive evidence and require corroboration.
4. The prosecution highlighted the substantial value of the seized gold and the detailed nature of the statements, emphasizing the involvement of the petitioner in multiple smuggling incidents.
5. The court considered the comprehensive nature of the statements, the corroborative evidence of the seized gold, and the repeated involvement of the petitioner in smuggling activities, leading to the denial of bail.
6. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the court emphasized the societal impact of economic offenses, highlighting the need to hold offenders accountable to maintain public trust in the justice system.
7. The court dismissed the petition, citing the detailed statements, lack of relevance of retraction judgments, and absence of discrimination in the case.
8. The petitioner's interim bail, granted due to health reasons, was extended pending a medical report from the hospital, with a directive to appear for evaluation and submission of the latest medical report to the court.
-
1993 (5) TMI 186
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the transfer of shares and credits.
2. Approval of the revival scheme for the company.
3. Compliance with statutory requirements.
4. Representation and voting rights of creditors and shareholders.
5. Financial viability and public interest of the proposed scheme.
6. Role and authority of the Chairman in the meetings.
7. Objections raised by Mr. H.L. Seth.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Transfer of Shares and Credits:
The court validated the transfer of shares and credits to M/s. Misra and Arenja. It was held that "the agreement was entered into bona fide and in the interest of the company." The court also noted that "Seth did not challenge the agreement at all" and that "Misra and Arenja stepped into the shoes of the Bank" after settling with the Punjab National Bank.
2. Approval of the Revival Scheme for the Company:
The court sanctioned the scheme proposed by M/s. Misra and Arenja, as modified by Resolution No. 1, and rejected the schemes proposed by Kelvinator and Mr. H.L. Seth. The court emphasized that "the revival of the company is in public interest" and that "Misra and Arenja have already contributed approximately Rs. 40 lakhs in this venture."
3. Compliance with Statutory Requirements:
The court ensured that the statutory requirements were met, noting that "the statement of affairs as required under Sub-s. (1) of S. 454 of the Act was filed giving the details of the debts and liabilities of the company." The court also directed the Official Liquidator to "substitute the names of M/s. A. K. Misra and Brahm Arenja and their nominees as per the transfer deeds in place of the members."
4. Representation and Voting Rights of Creditors and Shareholders:
The court addressed the objections regarding the voting rights and representation of creditors and shareholders. It was held that "the correct method would be that when a person acquires or buys the credits of a number of creditors, he merely steps into their shoes." The court found that "the Scheme was approved by over 95% of the total shares represented at the meeting."
5. Financial Viability and Public Interest of the Proposed Scheme:
The court found the scheme proposed by M/s. Misra and Arenja to be financially viable and in the public interest. The court noted that "Misra and Arenja are men of sufficient means and financial resources" and that "the Scheme is in the interest of the company, its creditors, as well as shareholders."
6. Role and Authority of the Chairman in the Meetings:
The court addressed the objections regarding the Chairman's role and authority. It was held that "the Chairman should not have travelled beyond what was ordered by court in this connection" and that "the Chairman's report has not been enclosed with the present petition and therefore the present petition has not been filed as per the requirement of Rule 40 of the Company Court Rules."
7. Objections Raised by Mr. H.L. Seth:
The court rejected the objections raised by Mr. H.L. Seth, noting that "the objections being raised by Mr. Seth in the light of the facts which have come to light in the course of hearing cannot be accepted as bona fide." The court also stated that "Mr. Seth has already sold practically all his shareholding of the Seth Group as well as their credits in favour of Misra and Arenja and their associates."
Conclusion:
The court allowed C.P. 131 of 1988 in terms of the above order, and C.A. 1082 of 1987 was partly allowed. Other C.As. 2083/88, 7626/89, 13375/89, 130/90, 328/90, 414/85, and 94/87 were dismissed. The court directed that "the order dated 9th March, 1978 in C.P. 54/77 for winding up of this company be and is hereby recalled and cancelled subject to the aforesaid directions."
-
1993 (5) TMI 185
Issues:
Passing of receiving order on winding up application based on disputed bills for iron scrap materials; Company's defense of total non-receipt of goods; Disputes regarding signatures on bills and absence of weighment bridge records; Company's attempt to create confusion by disputing debts without reasonable grounds; Dispute over interest claimed in statutory notice.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a winding up application based on six bills for iron scrap materials, with the company disputing the receipt of goods under five bills while admitting a portion of the debt. The company's defense of total non-receipt of goods is crucial, as it differs from typical defenses of shortage or quality issues. The court notes the company's silence upon receiving the bills and questions the validity of the company's defense.
The judgment delves into the signatures on the bills, highlighting discrepancies in the company's arguments regarding the signatories. Despite the company's claims of improper signatures, the court finds inconsistencies in the company's position, especially concerning previous bill payments signed by the same individuals. The court emphasizes that a bona fide defense is necessary to avoid a winding up application, labeling unsubstantiated disputes as an abuse of the court process.
Furthermore, the judgment addresses the company's attempts to cloud the debts by disputing without reasonable grounds, such as creating confusion over previous liabilities and interest claims. The court dismisses these attempts as smoke screens and emphasizes the importance of providing valid grounds for disputing debts. The court ultimately decides to admit the winding up petition, highlighting the importance of upholding the law and providing the petitioning creditor with a remedy.
In conclusion, the judgment scrutinizes the company's defenses, signatures on bills, and attempts to dispute debts without substantial grounds. It underscores the necessity of valid defenses in avoiding winding up applications and upholding the integrity of the legal process.
-
1993 (5) TMI 184
Issues:
1. Challenge to restraint order under section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Challenge to attachment order under section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Validity of retaining books of account beyond sixty days under section 132(8A).
4. Vires of section 281B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
Challenge to Restraint Order:
The petitioner's premises were searched by Customs authorities, leading to the seizure of incriminating documents related to import business. Subsequently, a restraint order was issued under section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act, preventing the petitioner from operating its bank account. The petitioner filed Civil Writ No. 3906 of 1992 to challenge this order. The court noted that the release order had rendered the challenge against the restraint order moot. Additionally, the argument that the books of account were retained beyond sixty days without proper extension was dismissed, as the authorized officer had extended the operation of the order within the prescribed time. Consequently, CW No. 3906 of 1992 was dismissed.
Challenge to Attachment Order:
The Income-tax Department attached the petitioner's current account under section 281B of the Income-tax Act during the pendency of Civil Writ No. 3906 of 1992. The court analyzed the requirements of section 281B and found that the attachment order was justified based on the recovery of 27 incriminating documents during the search. The court held that the attachment was legal even though the assessment proceedings were pending, as it was necessary to protect the revenue's interests. The court rejected the argument that the attachment was premature and upheld the validity of the attachment order. Consequently, CW No. 191 of 1993 challenging the attachment order was dismissed.
Validity of Retaining Books of Account:
The petitioner raised concerns about the retention of books of account beyond sixty days without proper extension under section 132(8A). The court found that the authorized officer had extended the operation of the order within the prescribed time and with the approval of the Director/Commissioner, making this argument devoid of merit. The court dismissed the contention regarding the retention of books of account.
Vires of Section 281B:
The petitioner challenged the vires of section 281B of the Income-tax Act, arguing that it lacked guidelines for making provisional attachments. The court disagreed, stating that the section requires the Assessing Officer to form an opinion, seek approval from the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, and then issue the order. The court held that if an arbitrary order is passed, the aggrieved party can approach the court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court found no issue with the validity of section 281B and dismissed the argument.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the validity of the restraint and attachment orders under the Income-tax Act, dismissed the challenges against them, and clarified the legal provisions regarding the retention of books of account and the vires of section 281B.
-
1993 (5) TMI 183
Issues Involved:
1. Exploitation of Imams by Wakf Boards
2. Employment status and remuneration of Imams
3. Financial difficulties of Wakf Boards
4. Legal and administrative responsibilities of Wakf Boards
Detailed Analysis:
Exploitation of Imams by Wakf Boards
The petitioners, representing Imams in charge of mosque religious activities, sought enforcement of their fundamental rights under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming exploitation by Wakf Boards. They requested recognition as employees of the Boards and demanded basic wages for survival, citing a glaring disparity between their work and remuneration. The petition highlighted the essential role of Imams in leading prayers, maintaining mosque cleanliness, calling azans, and propagating Islamic faith, asserting that their duties require them to be well-versed in Shariat, the Quran, Hadiths, ethics, philosophy, and various social, economic, and religious aspects.
Employment Status and Remuneration of Imams
The Union of India and various State Wakf Boards disputed the petition, arguing that Imams are appointed by Mutwallis and not entitled to emoluments as a matter of right under Islamic law, which ordains voluntary service. They claimed that Imams are paid from mosque donations or by Mutwallis, and their role is honorary. The Delhi Wakf Board, however, acknowledged paying Imams an honorarium for their regular presence. The Punjab Wakf Board detailed a structured pay scale for Imams based on qualifications, treating them as regular employees. The Supreme Court noted that the absence of statutory provisions for Imam appointments does not negate their need for sustenance, recognizing that many Imams rely solely on their mosque duties for livelihood.
Financial Difficulties of Wakf Boards
The Wakf Boards cited financial constraints as a barrier to meeting the demands for Imam remuneration, pointing out the large number of mosques and the heavy expenditure involved. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, stating that financial difficulties cannot override the fundamental rights of citizens. The Court emphasized the Boards' duty to harness resources to pay Imams, who perform the crucial role of leading community prayers, the primary purpose of mosques.
Legal and Administrative Responsibilities of Wakf Boards
The Supreme Court highlighted the Wakf Boards' supervisory and administrative responsibilities under the Wakf Act, including ensuring that mosque income is applied to its intended purposes. The Court rejected the Boards' claim of having no control over mosques or Imams, asserting that the Boards are responsible for the proper maintenance of religious services in mosques. The judgment underscored that the Boards' duties include ensuring that Imams, who are integral to mosque functions, are adequately compensated.
Directions Issued:
1. The Union of India and the Central Wakf Board are to prepare a scheme within six months for different types of mosques.
2. Mosques under government control are excluded, but the government may fix emoluments for Imams without independent income.
3. The scheme should provide remuneration for Imams in registered mosques, guided by the pay scale in Punjab and Haryana.
4. State Boards must ascertain each mosque's income and the number and nature of required Imams.
5. Full-time Imams' remuneration should follow the Punjab Wakf Board guidelines, with similar guidance for part-time Imams.
6. Full-time Imams should be paid as determined by the scheme.
7. Part-time and honorary Imams should receive remuneration and allowances as per the scheme.
8. The scheme must address small or rural mosques with no income and find ways to raise funds.
9. The scheme should be enforced within six months, with remuneration effective from December 1, 1993, if not prepared in time.
10. The Central Wakf Board's scheme must be implemented by every State Board.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the petition, directing the preparation and enforcement of a scheme to ensure fair remuneration for Imams, recognizing their essential role and the Boards' responsibility to support them financially. The judgment emphasized the fundamental rights of Imams to live with dignity, irrespective of financial constraints faced by the Wakf Boards.
........
|
9911796707
