jitender
18 November 2011 at 13:49
dear members, require your expert advice,
can a Single bench of HC sitting in writ jurisdiction, refuse to consider the judgement of the same HC delivered in a civil suit in the exactly same facts and circumstances merely becoz that judegemnt was passed in civil suit....and preposition of law laid down by the HC in civil suit will not apply to writ petitions.....
please provide the opinions as well as the case law if possible....
jitender
18 November 2011 at 13:45
dear members, require your expert advice,
can a Single bench of HC sitting in writ jurisdiction, refuse to consider the judgement of the same HC delivered in a civil suit in the exactly same facts and circumstances merely becoz that judegemnt was passed in civil suit....and preposition of law laid down by the HC in civil suit will not apply to writ petitions.....
please provide the opinions as well as the case law if possible....
Rohith Reddy
18 November 2011 at 01:53
we are studying in a private deemed university with compulsory residential. We are being deprived of our fundamental right to smoke and they use breath analyzer at campus gate to screen people if they are drunk randomly, are there any guidelines as per constitution as of can our university making their own set of rules and depriving us of our right (coz we are being punished if we exercise our rights) can we move legal against the institution about these things
Anonymous
17 November 2011 at 12:04
Respected Experts, need your inputs for my case:
I had first filed divorce case on the grounds of cruelty which was immediately followed by 498a case against me & my family. All are out on bail now. Chargesheet not yet filed.
Girl not attending in person, divorce case dates, her lawyer is putting petition on all dates giving one pretext or the other for her absence.
498a related concerns:
1). The FIR doesn't contain any event at her city, events are of my city.Can 498a case be transferred from her city to my city based on jurisdiction, for trial.
2). If I go for quashing of the FIR, is there any possibility that she can again file another 498a after adding new masala. Under what section of law this is not allowed.
3). If the FIR quashing is on the grounds of jurisdiction, can she go & refile another 498a in the another jurisdiction (this time she will make sure that jurisdiction matter is taken care of) ?
4). Chargesheet has not been filed yet, can I file discharge petition u/s 239 ? Other than quashing, do I have any other option before filing of chargesheet (as police is delaying the filing of chargesheet, which is giving the girl's side enough time to plan).
Thanks & Regards !
Member (Account Deleted)
17 November 2011 at 10:48
What exactly the rule position in respect to disposal or utilise the ill-gotten or otherwise treasure trove , wealth in cash and in kind in lakhs of Mandir, masjids , Gurdwaras , Churches etc etc in this country.
Is it so difficult to build a consensus amongst people to pass an unanimous resolution to merge the funds of all Trusts and Mistrusts ill-maintained in the name of religions which teaches us to serve the poorest of poor rather waiting for some more DOLLAR SHESHADRIES to loot and plunder such unaccountable wealth in those places of worships.
Can these a subject for PIL?
Pl adv
Anonymous
16 November 2011 at 12:33
Dear sir,
My qurey is that a small community called KANIYAR in Karnataka. Kaniyar belongs to 2A category and by fradulant means encashing the benifits given to the Scheduled tribe by utilizing the name of another community by name KANIYAN and Kanyan which are Scheduled tribes restricted to Kollegal taluk of Chamarajanagar(earlier Mysore District).
Kaniyan and Kanyan are Scheduled tribes restricted to Kollegal taluk of chamarajanagar District of Karnataka and in the rest of Karnataka it is a backward community under 2A.The reason being, Kollegal taluk was part and parcel of the old Madras state and in 1956 during the reorganization of states Kollegal was merged with Mysore state . Kaniyans in Tamilnadu is categorised as Scheduled tribes and hence when Kollegal was merged with Mysore state the Kaniyans and Kanyan of Tamil Nadu were retained with their identity as a tribe and hence they were given the status of a Scheduled tribe restricting to Kollegal only.
In Karnataka , this community is treated as backward and was included in 2A category along with Kaniyar, Kaniyaru Knaisan, Kanizan and Kanyan. Since this communities in Kollegal were utilising the benifits of both ST and 2A Govt of Karnataka dated 23/7/1978 deleted Kaniyan and Kanyan from the list of Backward caste, since these caste were already included in the list of Scheduled Tribe as per the Presidential Notification. Hence the Scheduled tribe statuts to Kaniyan and Kanyan was thus made available only to Kollegal Taluk of Chamarajanagar distict of Karnataka and elswhere in the state these communities are treated as Backward caste.
Kaniyans are basically from Tamil Nadu and their antropological studies reveal that they are the followers of Lord Shiva and that as per the Mythology Kaniyan was the son of Goddess Parvathi.
Kaniyar, a Backward community in Karnataka which is a Vaishnavite and followers of Sri Ramanuja and devoties of Lord Vishnu. They follow patriarchial system and the naming ceremony is performed with yagna (presence of oma and havan)Thread bearing ceremony is conducted (upanayan)and are astrologers, the funeral of the dead is carried out by burning the dead body.
The small difference between KANIYAN(Shivites) and KANIYAR(Vaishnavite) is the last letter ie, letter "n"for Kaniyan and letter 'r' for Kaniyar. The fradulant community Kaniyar just by changing the letter "r" to "n" are considering themselves as Kaniyan and utilising the benifits of ST and thus doing fraud to the Government and socient in whole.
More than 70% of this community are some how managed to get fake ST certificate from the Tashildar Kollegal way back in late 70's and 80's by producing fake address. The investigation of most of the these fake certificates reveal that more than 20 people with this certificates bear the same address.This is a racket. whena complaint was filed at the Tashildar Kollegal regarding one of the case where in the accused was not at all the native of Kollegal and the caste was KANIYAR and a native of T Narasipur taluk of Mysore district. The Primary School records and the the college records and also while entering into service the caste mentioned is Kaniyar and the native though being T Narsipur was given fake Kaniyan ST certificate. Govt of Karnataka has clarified that KAniyan and Kaniyar are different caste and the names are not synonymous. with all these substantial evidences the tasildar of kOllegal has and are still issunig such fake ST certificates to this fraud community as they have now accumulated enormous wealth to bribe the officials at all level and they are also now working at various levels as State level officers and in all rungs of the administration and hence have a powerful influence. This community is hijacking all the benifits to their 2nd generation and enjoying the benifits that are given to the real ST.
Now can a private complaint be lodged against this community? As all the officials with a clear cut circulars and orders stating that Kaniyars are Backward and that Kaniyan and Kaniyars are not synonymous, are protecting the infulencial people by corrupt means are still getting the benifits of ST and enjoying.
How can this malace be treated?
Ankit Kr Mishra
16 November 2011 at 10:50
Is it justified to apply the same criteria for classification of various types of cases that have been put for speedy trial under various Legislatures?
Ankit Kr Mishra
16 November 2011 at 10:23
Is the amendment by legislature in Rules of a High Court is constitutional?
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Wildlife protection act 1972
Dear Experts,
This query is to get your independent opinions regarding Sections 34(1),(2)and (3) of Wildlife Protection Act 1972 visa vis Arms Act 1959 and fundamental rights. Wildlife Protection Act 1972 can be read at http://envfor.nic.in/legis/wildlife/wildlife1.html
My position will be that arms are fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 supported by reasoning put forth in following links and High Court judgements as well as but not limited to doctrine of precedence, natural justice, strict scrutiny etc.:
1) Judgements of High Courts http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15638 and http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=15639
2) http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/RKBA-guaranteed-under-Articles-19-and-21-of-Constitution-36011.asp
I want to establish Sections 34(1),(2)and (3) of Wildlife Protection Act 1972 to be unreasonable, superfluous and ultra vires.
Following is the zist of my reasoning:
Section 34(1) and (2) of Wildlife Protection Act 1972 are putting unreasonable, unnecessary and needless burden on arms license holders when arms are already well regulated under Arms Act 1959 and information about all arms license holders in the area is already present with the District Magistrate.
Liberty is guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution. Liberty includes not be be put under unnecessary, unreasonable burden, harassment or insult. Arms licenses or exemptions from licenses are issued to law abiding citizens by following the due process of law and putting all of them under unreasonable burden and suspicion amounts to treating them like criminals is affront to them and their Liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. Chief Wildlife Warden without any reasonable suspicion asking all arms license holders to line up at his office under Section 34(1) and (2) of of Wildlife Protection Act 1972, amounts to insult and harassment of arms license holders.
If he ever has credible evidence about violation of Wildlife Protection Act 1972 with help of arms against any person, he is anyways free to request information related to arms license from the District Magistrate or file a case in appropriate court of law.
Moreover since arms are a fundamental right, the Chief Wildlife Warden can safely assume that since arms are fundamental right, every citizen who is not barred by law from possessing arms, is in possession of arms. Section 34(3) is ultra vires and superfluous since arms are fundamental right under Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution and hence every citizen unless disqualified under Section 14 of Arms Act 1959 is entitled to keep and bear arms as per law. Where is the need to require concurrence of Chief Wildlife Warden when there is already a provision for police report about the arms license applicant?