dr.ak rastogi
19 June 2013 at 11:03
Medical council of India conducts a screening test ,through national board of examinations for Indian medical graduates, who graduated from foreign medical universities ,numbering around 15000,every 6 months for registration to practice in India with 50% as qualifying marks.It is a tough exam with hardly 20-25%people being able to qualify.
>In dec.2011,MCI passed an order no.MCI-203-9/2011-REGN./33625 DATED 01/09/2011 exempting those having medical qualification from certain countries viz.USA,UK,CANADA,AUSTRALIA & NEWZEALAND .from such a screening test prior to registration with MCI,while those graduated from other countries have still to undergo screening test,
>Such an order is totally discriminatory,arbitrary,unfair and violates the right of equality given to every citizen of India under constitution of India.The reason given for such an exemption is ,that they are English speaking countries,is not at all justified as we are a Hindi speaking country.Also,there are many English speaking countries like Philippines and Ireland,which have not been given such an exemption.
>I JUST WANT TO KNOW-WHAT LEGAL HELP IS POSSIBLE TO THOSE WHO ARE STILL BEING SUBJECTED TO SCREENING TEST ?
mohd mahboob
17 June 2013 at 15:22
what is procedure seek clarification of order from andhra pradesh high court
Shafi Shah
14 June 2013 at 17:46
Dear Sir,
I am a Teacher in west bengal government school.i have nominated myself for the panchayat election as a independant condidate.Here teachers are allowed to fight election, so large no of teachers nominated himself becouse they dont want to go on election duty.
Now due to shortage of election duty staff government have decided to cancealed nomination of independant condidate.
My question is that what can i do against government decision.
Dr Sangh Mittra
14 June 2013 at 15:37
Is there any likelihood of admission of Writ Petition and likelihood of any relief for me in the form of quashing of acquisititon proceedings qua my piece of Land on grounds of discrimination, my defence service in which I remained outside the state boundaries and none staying in the area where my plot was situated and none of the notices/ notifications reaching me nor sent to me at my registered address outside the state where acquisition process was confined?
The fact of I then being a Squadron Leader of Indian Air Force and my address being outside the geographical boundaries of the State Government was recorded in the state revenue records.
I had constructed a Boundary Wall, small Latrine and DPC on my plot as that was all I could do being in the All India Service staying away from the acquiring state.
At the time of Notification under Section 4 of LA Act 1894 on 27 September 2007 the said residential structures had existed on my plot.
The wall is defined to mean as building under Section 2 of HUDA Act 1975.
The Notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 and the award under section 12(2) were never sent to me as the Newspapers in which these were published did not have all india circulation and have never reached me.
Even the Notice under Section 9(4) was never ever sent to me.
Please advise as the other related query has remained unresolved for so long with only these pertinent queries as I intend to file the Writ Petition now as so far I have corresponded with the state officials and no reply has been given to me except that the matter is being looked in to and even now the correspodence is on and the Officials are telling each other to reply to my queries.
Dr SM
jayalaxmi
12 June 2013 at 13:13
Dear Sir/Madam
How many minimum number of judges of the High court are required to sign the confirmation of death sentence?
thank u
visha lranjan
11 June 2013 at 19:17
if a Writ Petition has to be filed against Ministry of Finance(GoI), then who will be an appropriate Respondent?
THANKS AND REGARDS
Vikram Singh
09 June 2013 at 09:16
I am SC candidate having my caste certificates from Uttarakhand but i have changed my surname. I have also made a gazette certificate certificate from maharashtra. my query is the gazette should be made from place of current residence or from residence where caste is valid???
kiran
04 June 2013 at 22:35
Respected Sir,
IF MLA who was elected on a political party symbol is now going against the same party. So a disqualification pitision filed by the political party.
After a disqualification pitision filed on him, he resigned to assembly.
But as disqualification pitision is filed first the candidate was disqualified by speaker of the legislative assembly.
In this case does the disqualified candidate is eligible to contest in next election?
If so he is able to contest then what is the use of disqualifying him rather than accepting his resignation?
I am eager to know this...as now a days all leaders are thinking on their benefits rather than people, who voted him on a particular party symbol.
Thanks,
KIRAN
P. Venu
04 June 2013 at 12:03
I am a public servant. My department, though an insignificant institution, has been vigorous litigant. The subject-matter of the litigation is of far-reaching impact. During 1997-2002 I had studied the subject matter with reference to the public records and had found that the Department has been pursuing misconceptions and that it has not been a responsible or honest litigant. I had apprised the authorities at all levels of the material facts. Subsequently I had come across much more starker aspects. These have been brought to the notice of the authorities. I have also published some articles highlighting the issues:
-"Wilful distortion denies to salt pan owners justice” (http://www. indiatogether.org/2008/apr/hrt-saltpan.htm);
- Contentious Rule, Incredible Verdict” (Journal of Indian Law and Society, Volume 1, 2009); (http://jils.ac.in/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/p-venu.pdf)
- “Experiments with Falsehood” (http://www.lawyersclub india.com/articles/Experiments-with-Falsehood-2047.asp).
- "Once Landholders, now Leaseholders" (http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Once-Landholders-now-Leaseholders-4832.asp#.Ua2LltIzNv8)
Some time back, some among the defendants in a suit filed by the Department had sought my assistance in placing the material facts before the Court. Hence I had filed the following petition.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION AT PANVEL-DISTRICT – RAIGAD
Misc. Petition No. of 2011
IN
Special Civil Suit No. 84/2009
P.Venu,
Assistant Salt Commissioner,
Assistant Salt Commissioner’s Bungalow,
2-1-44/45, Madhav Nagar, Pithapuram Road,
Kakinada 533 003, Andhra Pradesh …. Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Union of India through
The Deputy Salt Commissioner,
Exchange Building, 4th Floor,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai. …. Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Ashaben Prakash Parekh
& Others …. Respondents/Defendants
Petition under Order 1, Rule 8A read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code
For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit this petitioner to implead himself in the above mentioned Special Civil Suit No. 84/2009 in public interest and to allow this petitioner to present his opinion and to take part in the proceedings in accordance with law.
Dated at Kakinada on 8th December, 2011.
Petitioner
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION AT PANVEL-DISTRICT – RAIGAD
Misc. Petition No. of 2011
IN
Special Civil Suit No. 84/2009
P.Venu,
Assistant Salt Commissioner,
Assistant Salt Commissioner’s Bungalow,
2-1-44/45, Madhav Nagar, Pithapuram Road,
Kakinada 533 003, Andhra Pradesh …. Petitioner
Vs.
1 The Union of India through
The Deputy Salt Commissioner,
Exchange Building, 4th Floor,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai. …. Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Ashaben Prakash Parekh
& Others …. Respondents/Defendants
AFFIDAVIT OF P.VENU, ASSISTANT SALT COMMISSIONER IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY
I, P.Venu, aged 58 years, S/o Late ShriN.Parameswaran Pillai, working as Assistant Salt Commissioner in the Office of the Assistant Salt Commissioner, 2-1-44/45, Madhav Nagar do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:-
1. I am to submit that Shri Ganesh Janardhan Tahkur and 40 others, who are among the defendants in the above mentioned Special Civil Suit No. 84/2009,have addressed me a request seeking my assistance in placing the real facts before this Hon’ble Court. They have informed that they all are having salt pans in the suit property known as Ganesh Prasad Salt Works and these pans are belonging to their forefathers. They have stated that they have been producing salt in these salt works for the last 150 yearsand their livelihood depends on this business only. They have also informed that they are very poor and they do not have the sufficient means to plead against the Government. Hence they had sought my assistance in placing the real facts before the Hon’ble Court.
2. I had been closely associated with and well informed of subject matter of this Special CivilSuit. During the period 1998-2002, while posted in the Office of the Deputy Salt Commissioner, Mumbai, I had been in-charge of the team entrusted with the task of identifying and collecting documents and records relevant to the subject matter of the above mentioned Special Civil Suit and related matters, available with the Salt Department as well as the Department of Archives, Government of Maharashtra. The team had undertaken a systematic search of the records of the State Archives and had collected almost the complete information relating to the controversy commencing from the establishment of British Rule in the erstwhile Bombay Presidency. Copies of these documents have been obtained and kept in compilations numbering more than five hundred.
3. I have carefully gone through the plaint filed on behalf of the Plaintiff. It is stated that the averments therein are misconceived, being either errors of fact or errors of law or errors in fact as well in law. It is respectfully submitted that all errors in fact and errors in law are questions of law. A judicious decision in the present civil suit involves findings on the following among other questions of law:
(a) The defendants and their predecessors in title have been occupying the suit property for the past 150 years. They have been the first occupants of the res nullius. They have perfected their rights as shilotries who reclaimed the land, constructed the salt works and have kept it in good repair since then. Whether, the defendants are not the occupants of the suit land, as defined under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 and Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966?
(b) The licence for manufacture of salt under the Bombay Salt Acts of 1873 & 1890 had been granted to the predecessors in title of the defendants in their capacity as proprietors of the private salt work. Whether, the licence granted under the said Acts do not constitute good and valid title for the ownership rights of the defendants?
(c) Section 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code provides only those lands which are not the property of private persons to be the property of the Government. Whether, the suit land belongs to the Government, notwithstanding the property rights of the defendants and their predecessors in title?
(d) The defendants and their predecessors have been the proprietors in occupation of the suit property for the past 150 years. Whether, the institution of the present suit is permissible by the Law of Limitation?
(e) The Bombay Salt Act of 1890 had been repealed by the Central Excise & Salt Act 1944. Licensing of salt manufacture had continued under the Central Excise Rules notified under Section 37 of the latter Act. The said rules relating to salt had become defunct because of the abolition of duty on salt with effect from 1/4/1947. Whether, continuation of the licensing system thereafter and periodical renewal and imposing of conditions through licence were legally permissible?
(f) Production and sale of salt is a normal and benign business and not a res extra commercium. Whether, the plaintiff has been competent, ever since the abolition of duty of salt, to regulate and impose restrictions on the Right to Freedom and Right to Life and Livelihood of the defendants and their predecessors in title, in the absence of any valid powers vested by law? Whether, it will not be repugnant to the Scheme of the Constitution and its command to impose regulations and restrictions on Right to Freedom and Right to Life and Livelihood of citizens not through valid laws but by private agreements?
(g) Admittedly, salt manufacture had been delicensed. Whether, is it not a defiance of the will of the Legislature for the Executive to introduce indirect licensing through backdoor by compellingsalt cultivators to enter into lease with the Government?
(h) The suit property has been in occupation of the defendants and their predecessors in title much prior to the introduction of the licensing system under Bombay Salt Act, 1873. Whether, the averment that the defendants have the right to manufacture, remove and the sale of salt in the suit property because of the licence granted by plaintiff does not amount to willful misrepresentation?
(i) The Archival records and the records of the Salt Department show that ground rent has been a levy, as a special contract in terms of Section 45 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, in lieu of land revenue assessment. The salt officers have been collecting this levy as a matter of convenience for being credited to the accounts of the Land Revenue Department. The salt work lands under this system of revenue realization have recorded as Mithagar to distinguish this special arrangement. These lands revert to ordinary survey tenure on the cessation of the lands being used for salt cultivation. Whether, in light of the above information, the averments that Revenue Records do not show any assessment against the suit land and thatthe defendants have been paying ground rent to the Salt Department in recognition of its ownership, do not amount to willful misrepresentation?
(j) Archival records inform that the term‘private salt work’ was inclusively defined in Bombay Salt Act, 1890 as ‘the salt work not solely owned or not solely worked by the Government’ as a legal fiction or device so that relevant provisions of the Act could be extended to the Government salt works worked by lessees. Whether, the denial of title of the defendants on the basis of the legal fiction provided in a law repealed in 1944, amount to willful misrepresentation?
(k) Order No.1733-B, Rules for disposing of the Application for permission to open new Salt Works,had been notified as executive instructions having no force of law. Only the salt works at Bhandup and one salt work at Mira were opened under the said Rules on the lands acquired by the Salt Department. Whether, the averment that said rules were notified under Bombay Salt Act of 1890 do not amount to willful misrepresentation?
(l) Whether, it is in public interest for the State to institute civil action against its citizens advancing pleadings contrary its knowledge in disregard to public policy, in particular the National Litigation Policy, and recanting the scheme of the Constitution and its commands?
4. It is respectfully submitted that findings on the questions of law as above are of far reaching consequences as there are a large number of litigation of similar nature pending before different courts. The Hon’ble Court would be better placed to render justice if all the relevant information is made available to it in the proper perspective.
5. Under these circumstances, I pray that the Hon’ble Court may kindly pleased to allow me submit before it the best evidence in the subject matter of the case and to render justice.
Solemnly affirmed at Kakinada on the 8thday December, 2011 and signed his name in my presence.
Before me
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The court is yet to decide the Petition. Yesterday, I have been served a charge-sheet, inter alia, alleging that filing of the Petition amounts to misconduct.
Does this action amount to Contempt of Court? Can I initiate appropriate action in the Court?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Article 14
Hello Experts,
Can anyone help me on getting an Apex Court order on arbitrariness and article 14? I am planning to challenge certain discretion inserted in the guidelines issued under provisions of law.
Regards
Ketan Modi