Jaigopal Soni
15 April 2014 at 15:34
Dear Sir,
My sister has filed Writ Petition against the inaction of the Project Implementing Agency a Govt Power Company & State Govt of Chhattisgarh in considering her application for the permanent job and other benefits as per the ideal rehabilitation policy of state & R&R Plan proposed by Power Company.
High Court Bilaspur has admitted the case vide registration no WPS/3807/2013 dated 20.11.2013 & issued notice to the Respondents 1-6 where 1-3 represeting the state govt has presented the return but respondent no 4-6 representing the power company has not replied till date.
My case is not listed again till date even after passing 15 day of Notice period copy of notice is not given when i asked for certified copy of proceeding please guide me if i can register complain against respondent No 4-5-6 for contempt of court(for neither replying nor considering the application of the petitioner)
kuldeep kumar
14 April 2014 at 18:33
as of now more than 98 amendments are passed..some pending some passed..total comes around 118..but answer all over is total of 98 amendments have been passed till today..
so far articles are concerned they hv reached 448 ..its an academic vs expert ques
im interested to knw how number increases in amendments ..there are other amendments passed but figure is at 98 not more than 98
if some1 knws anseer
tnx
manjil
05 April 2014 at 18:20
what will be the legal possition when victim himself come before court as a third party and ask for right to depose the truth in complaint loged by unkown person?
T RAJESH KUMAR
04 April 2014 at 16:10
Respected sir,
1.may i know how to file case in supreme court against reservation system in our country.
2.please tell me the procedure of e filling
the above case
3.under what category this case comes.
Umapathy PS
04 April 2014 at 12:02
Respected Sir,
I have recently completed my LLB degree @ AP in regular stream, Aged 40 years, at the time of admission my age was 37 in the year of 2010. I have passed my LLB degree,
I wish to be a member in Tamil Nadu Bar Council, Nowadays the TN Bar council not issuing the membership application those who have completed the age of 35 years.They are stating that one Case is pending before Honouable High Court_ Madurai. In all India Bar Council is it any age restriction for Legal education & Membership in the Bar. I pray your advice.
Thanks & Regards,
saj
29 March 2014 at 21:59
help me to defense as union of India,
in detail with case laws, articles
kindly solute all issues
need to handle as the Indus (respondent)
SAMAJ SEVA SANGH V/S UNION OF INDUS
Indus is a democratic nation. Indus being a democratic & welfare state, welfare of
the people should be her paramount consideration. The Constitution of Indus mandates
the government to undertake appropriate measures in the field of healthcare, food,
employment, poverty, etc.
These obligations are prominently stated in the scheme of fundamental rights &
directive principles of the state policy. Even after providing copious provisions for
combating malnourishment & starvation deaths, a survey conducted by Janata Seva
Samachar Patra revealed the grim state of affairs showing that 40% of people are dying
due to starvation every year, while there being a surplus stock of food grains lying
unused & rotted in the government godowns. The survey result was published in the
newspapers & made the government to take notice of the same & the government
responded by enacting “Food For All Act”, 2013.
Food For All Act, 2013
Preamble: An Act to give effect to the various International Instruments on “Right to
food”& to ensure food for all persons at all times, in pursuance of right to live with
dignity.
1: Extent & Commencement: (1) This Act may be called the Food for All Act, 2013.
(2) It extends to the whole of Indus.
(3) It shall come into force on the 1st day of April,2013.
2: Definitions
(a) “Food for all”: means sufficient availability of food grains to the deserved
family.
(b) “Adequacy of food”: means having sufficient and nutritious food at affordable
price for all the family members for healthy living.
(c) “Deserved family”: means a family and includes BPL card holders, senior
citizens, infirm persons, disabled persons, destitute men & women, pregnant
women, destitute children and the like cases, but excludes land owners, tax
payers and persons already covered by the Central Government financial
schemes.
(d) “ Food grains” : means and includes rice, wheat and coarse grains.
(e) “ Ear marked Public Distribution Shops” : means shops selected by the
Government to provide grains at subsidized rate to the deserved families under
this Act.
(f) “ Subsidized Rate” : means rate fixed by the Government i.e. Re.1/-per Kg of
rice for 5 Kg, Rs.3/-per Kg of Wheat for 3 Kg and Rs.10/-per Kg of Coarse
grains for 3 Kg.
(g) “ Accessibility of food” : means economical access at all times to sufficient food
taking into account the changes in the circumstances.
(h) “ Minimum Price” : means the price covering the cost of Production only.
(i) “ Fair & Reasonable Price” : means the price including cost of production,
transportation & porterage.
3: Each member belonging to “deserved family” shall be entitled to sufficient food by
availing those food grains per month at subsidized rate through earmarked public
distribution shops:
Provided exclusion of one member is deemed to be exclusion of other members
of family from the purview of this Act;
Provided further that the farmers shall contribute 50% of these food grains for
the purpose of this Act, for which they shall be paid minimum price by the government.
Farmers are free to sell remaining 50% of these food grains in free market at any price.
4. The provisions of International instruments on Human Rights shall be taken in to
account while giving effect to the provisions of this Act.
5. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in
Indus, governing food subsidies to the poor, the provisions of this Act will
be given effect thereto.
A five year old girl Soadha in Ghasibpur village(Indus)died due to
starvation, as her poor father owning one acre of dry land couldn’t get enough food to
feed his family of 12. He could not get benefit of the said Act as he didn’t fall within the
definition of “deserved family”.
In another case, Ghazaginagar village (Indus) faced deluge, which swept
away innumerable villagers & the one who survived were trapped in water & were
unable to get essential commodities like food, water as government couldn’t reach them
because of flooded water & the private shops operating in that village provided those
hapless with food which was not only inadequate but too costly which many could not
afford to buy. They have charged rice plate Rs.500/- per plate, Biscuits Rs.200/- per
packet, etc.
Noticing the above two ghastly incidents Samaj Seva Sangh, a Non
Governmental Organization approached the Government to amend the Act, to provide
food for all under all circumstances - to which Government showed callous and
indifferent attitude. Therefore espousing the cause of those deprived & hapless people,
Samaj Seva Sangh filed a PIL petition before the Supreme Court.
The Government in its reply has challenged the very maintainability of petition.
Points for consideration before Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indus;
1) Whether the said petition is maintainable?
2) Whether the impugned Act is violative of the Constitution?
3) Whether the impugned legislation is violative of International Human Rights
instruments?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has posted the case for hearing of both the parties.
The Constitution of Indus is similar to that of the Constitution of India.
kapilsingh
24 March 2014 at 18:09
hi sir.. please tell me.. if a society is registered under 1860 ACT of Societies.. then is this necessary to renew it under new act of 2012!!
dinesh kumar gautam
23 March 2014 at 00:44
I am a central govt. employee and my wife is a school teacher on the same station. We both are appointed in the upcoming Lok Sabha election. Is there any G.O. for exemption from election duty of one of the spouse?
Member (Account Deleted)
22 March 2014 at 01:51
I have asked the question earlier as well as a member of this 2 Lac plus social site.Now I am engaged myself as my Advocate without any degree in law as PIP WP 21313/2013 in HC AP. As someone has foretold that my writ will be posted in the routine manner.But it has to be posted.So I need to be up-dated and fight it out.
As my daughter was offered a Cat-C MBBS seat but declined and was offered a BDS seat in GDC&H in Hyderabad and admitted I think there is no hassl;es as far as candidate is concerned.
My appl for CAP cert (Children of Armed Forces Personnel)for a MBBS seat as per her EAMCET 2013 rank under CAP quota ( 1 %)stands denied by Zilla Sainik Welfare Officer on my DOMICILE issue.
I am an Ex Servicemen retired after 30 years of service to the nation. That's settle my domicile of India issue.
Apex Court has settled the issue conclusively that an Indian is a domicile of India and there is nothing as " Domicile of West Bengal or Domicile of AP ".
If that be so it is incorrect on the part of Zilla Welfare Officer to deny me CAP cert on not being DOMICILE of the State of AP. But he has cited the auth of a letter from his immediate superior auth i.e Director of Sainik Welfare AP which has asked him not to issue CAP cert to any ESM who is not a DOMICILE of the state of AP.
The Director in turn has quoted some extract of a Judgement of the Chief Justic e of AP in Writ Appeal No 951 & 952 of 2006.
In that order The Division Bench headed by then Chief Justice has stated that as per the EAMCET notification "mere residence of 5 years in AP is the only criterion for an ESM to obtain a CAP quota for his ward" should be revisited as various proceedings issued by Directorate of Resettlement Min of Def GOI prescribe DOMICILE as the main criterion for claiming benefits by the Ex servicemen.
I am ready to dis-count the claims or prescriptions issued by the ZSWO, the Director Sainik Welfare AP and the staff at the Directorate of Resettlement at the DGR MoD GOI as those were not legally trained to uphold the constitution. What about the Hon-ble Judges who wish to uphold the claims of the legally untrained officials. By citing the proceedings where those officials have prescribed DOMICILE OF A STATE as the main criterion to avail benefits offered by that state?
Is it not a case of contempt by the hon-ble judges of the high court against the settled order of our APEX COURT on the issue of DOMICILE of a state in India?
I am ready to accept that use of term DOMICILE in this case is simply to indicate BELONGING to a state in addition of being a domicile of India. And DOMICILE of a state simply means a resident of a place in that state. Now the term Resident when it means or to be used at par with " belonging to the state" is to be defined by the state itself. In the instant case the state in its wisdom with due deliberations and weightage to all the proceedings issued by the DGR Min of Def GOI ( referred to by the hon-ble division bench) had published GO 370 of 1994 on eligibility for availing CAP cert from the respective ZSWOs which is in vogue and has not undergone any amendment as on date. That GO states "Any serving or retired armed forces personnel who has resided for 5 years in AP is eligible for CAP quota for his children".
Can any body help me to give me a counter so that I am doubly prepared?
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Public interest litigation
Can a public interest litigation(PLI) be filed on violation of Article 14 of Indian Constitution(Equality before Law)?