The Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service members have filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking appropriate writs or orders to be issued to respondent no. 1. The primary relief sought is the calling of judgments of the petitioners for elevation to the High Court as judicial officers as defined in Art. 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also sought any other writ, direction, or order that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
FACTS:
The petitioners, who served as District & Sessions Judge Fast Track, have filed a writ petition claiming that their service should be considered as a judicial service for the purpose of their elevation to the High Court. The Registry had prepared a list of eligible officers for elevation to the High Court, in which the names of the petitioners were not included as they did not have 10 years of regular judicial service. The petitioners claimed that their service as Fast Track Court Judges should be considered as a judicial service, but the Supreme Court, relying on its earlier judgment, held that the petitioners were not entitled to seniority from the date of their initial appointment as Fast Track Court Judges. the plea raised by the petitioners to consider their service as judicial service for the purpose of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution is not legally sustainable.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:
According to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the petitioners were appointed on an ad-hoc basis to preside over Fast Track Courts under the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for AdhocAppointments, 2001. Later, they were appointed on a regular basis in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge under the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007, after going through the selection process. The petitioners’ names appeared in the seniority list of officers working in the District & Sessions Judge cadre, which was notified by the respondents on 5th January 2022. However, despite their seniority, they were not elevated to the High Court, while officers who were junior to them in seniority were elevated. The respondents have defended their decision to overlook the petitioners’ claims for elevation to the High Court.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:
The primary grievance of the petitioners is that their service as a District & Sessions Judge Fast Track, which they rendered on appointment from 6th October 2003, has not been considered as judicial service for the purposes of their elevation to the High Court bench as defined under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution. The petitioners have alleged that despite being eligible for consideration, their names were not considered by the collegium as they had not completed 10 years of regular judicial service, which is the requirement of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution. The petitioners have also pointed out that there were nine vacancies in the High Court for elevation from judicial service and a list of 27 eligible officers was placed before the collegium, but their names were not considered. Instead, officers who had completed 10 years of judicial service were considered for elevation.
JUDGEMENT:
The present case concerns a writ petition filed by certain District & Sessions Judges who were not considered for elevation to the Bench of the High Court as defined under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution. The petitioners contended that their service rendered as a District & Sessions Judge Fast Track should have been considered as a judicial service for the purposes of their elevation to the Bench of the High Court.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, referred to the case of Kum C. Yamini Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019 decided on 14th August, 2019), where it had examined the nature of appointment of the District & Sessions Judges Fast Track and had held that the petitioners were not entitled to claim the benefit of seniority from the date of their initial appointment as District & Sessions Judge Fast Track and other consequential reliefs prayed for.
The Court held that the services rendered by the petitioners as Fast Track Court Judges have not been recognized for the purpose of seniority except for pensionary and other retirement benefits. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioners to consider their service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges as a judicial service for the purpose of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution was not legally sustainable.Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as without substance. Pending application(s), if any, stood disposed of.
VSMCASL was established in 2019 to engage in various ways in shaping the emerging discourse in the field of Air and Space Law. The Centre’s vision is to improve the existing legal and policy framework for the facilitation and regulation of safe, secure, affordable, and sustainable aviation and to contribute to the shaping of a legal foundation for the future of humanity that lies in space. The Centre was established to provide a platform for the students to develop their research skills in the field of Air and Space Law and encourage trans-disciplinary research on issues concerning it.
About the GNLU Air and Space Law Conference
The International Conference aims to provide a platform for deliberations amongst Air and Space Law enthusiasts, thereby contributing to the emerging discourse on the challenges posed to Air and Space Law in the future. The first edition of the Conference was successfully conducted in 2022. Encouraged by the same, VSMCASL is pleased to present the 2nd Edition of GNLU Air and Space Law Conference 2023, to be organised on 8 July 2023.
Important Dates
Last Date for Abstract Submission: Friday, 31 March 2023
Abstract Selection and Intimation – Monday, 10 April 2023.
Last Date for Registration – Saturday, 15 April 2023.
Last Date for Full Paper Submission – Wednesday, 10 May 2023.
Submission Guidelines
Abstract: 300-500 words
Paper: 3000 – 5000 words (excluding references; submission below or above the word limit shall not be considered).
Citation style: OSCOLA. (4th Edition)
Font: Times New Roman; Font size-12; Spacing- 1.5.
A cover page with the title of the Essay, name and affiliation of the author/co-authors shall be attached.
Submit text as a Microsoft Word document (.doc or .docx). Co-authorship is permitted up to a maximum of two authors.
Submissions need to be original.
Plagiarism shall result in disqualification.
Submissions shall be made online only.
Submissions shall be in English.
The topic, once registered, shall not be changed.
Any identification mark (in any form) in the paper shall lead to disqualification.
Multiple or incomplete submissions shall not be considered.
Any manuscript received after the last date shall not be considered.
Sub-themes
Management and regulation of airports
Anti-competitive issues in aviation
Protection of consumer rights in aviation
Aviation financing
Insolvency and Bankruptcy issues in the Aviation industry
Aviation-related crimes and aerial terrorism
Air accidents/incident investigation
Search and rescue Environmental aspects of the aviation industry
Commercial space mining
Space tourism
Space debris
Space communications
Space exploration
Space Insurance Environmental harm due to human activities in space International liability for incidents/accidents in space
National space law and policies
(List of sub-themes is indicative. Accordingly, a research paper on any other area relating to the theme of the Conference may be considered.)
Fees
GNLU Students – INR 590/-
Students – INR 1180/-
Others – INR 1770/-
The registration fee is the same for participation and presentation. The fee mentioned above is exclusive of accommodation and is non-refundable.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
The National Forensic Sciences University, with the status of an Institution of National Importance is the world’s first and only University dedicated to forensic, behavioural, cybersecurity, digital forensics, and allied sciences. It was established by the Parliament of India through Act 32 of 2020 with the objective of training and creating forensic experts for the country and the world.
About School of Law, Forensic Justice and Policy Studies
School of Law, Forensic Justice and Policy Studies is established to impart professional education with a special focus on forensic application in all allied areas of law and policy framework. The school aspires to be the leading provider of forensic justice understanding to all professionals from different areas of governance including justice administration. Through forensic lenses it focuses on crime prevention, crime reduction, crime mapping, and speedy and fair dispensation of justice, thereby contributing to the overall welfare of people. The school ultimately envisions producing sound techno-legal experts who can contribute in all areas of governance
Details about the event
It is a privilege and pride to announce that SLFJPS, NFSU is organizing the 1st National Moot Court Competition 2023 from 24-26th March 2023 at National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar Campus, Gujarat in Physical Mode. The moot court competition promises to present an interesting challenge to the participants across the legal spectrum, as the moot proposition has been drafted to test the teams and their approach to contemporary issues. Since NFSU is the only forensic sciences university, the moot proposition is directed towards the application of forensic sciences.
Important Dates
Last Date for Registration: 13. 03. 2023 11:59 pm.
Last Date of Memorial Soft Copy Submission: 18.03.2023
Submission of Hard Copy (3 Sets from each side): 24.03.2023
Competition Date: 24-26.03.2023
Eligibility Criteria
Any student pursuing law from a recognized institution
Location
National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
Arcum Global is a legal management firm specializing in residency planning and global business setups.
Position available
Associate
Location
New Delhi
Qualification
LLB/LLM/CS
Role and Responsibilities
1. Assisting with research & drafting in the sphere of international tax laws and regulations and FEMA 2. Conducting market study and competition mapping for business setups in North America and Europe. 3. Preparation of Research Reports 4. Drafting and reviewing legal documents such as contracts and agreements. 5. Client handling
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
Adv. Ratan K. Singh seeks a junior lawyer to join his personal chamber in Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi.
About the Advocate
Mr Ratan K. Singh is a Senior Advocate and Arbitrator based in New Delhi and has 25 years of experience, with specialities in construction, engineering, infrastructure, mining, and general commercial and civil disputes. I have received numerous arbitral appointments as chair and wing arbitrator and have represented parties in complex, high-value domestic and international arbitrations under major arbitration rules.
Position available
Junior Lawyer
Location
Greater Kailash – 1, New Delhi
Preferred qualifications/ qualities:
1. PQE 3-5 years (flexible), having experience in construction disputes. 2. Have strong drafting and briefing skills.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
The Indian Penal Code (IPC)[1] contains several provisions that serve as general exceptions to criminal liability. These provisions exempt certain actions from being considered crimes under certain circumstances.
For example, Section 76[2] provides that acts done by a person who is bound by law to do them are not crimes, while Section 80 provides that an act done in good faith for the benefit of a person without their consent is not a crime if it would otherwise have been so. Section 81 provides that an act done by several persons to further a common intention is not a crime if done in good faith for the advancement of religion, science, literature, or fine arts. The general exceptions under IPC are meant to provide a reasonable balance between the protection of individual rights and the public interest.
Judicial and Executive acts: A General Exception under IPC
Section 197 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides a general exception for acts performed by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties, or by any person acting under the direction of a public servant if such act is done in good faith. This means that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against such individuals unless prior sanction is obtained from the appropriate authority. This provision is intended to protect public servants from baseless lawsuits and ensure that they are able to perform their duties without fear of legal harassment.
Judicial acts as an exception
The judicial act exception under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a provision in Section 197 of the code that exempts public servants and persons acting under the direction of a public servant from criminal liability for acts performed in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. This provision applies to acts performed by judges, magistrates, and other public servants in the course of their official duties and provides immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in good faith in the performance of such duties. The purpose of this exception is to ensure that public servants are able to perform their duties without fear of being sued for criminal offences and to prevent frivolous or malicious lawsuits from being filed against them. However, prior sanction from the appropriate authority is required before criminal proceedings can be initiated against a public servant under this exception.
Case Laws that give us a vivid idea regarding the prevailing exceptions
There are several case laws that have interpreted and applied the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Some of the notable cases include:
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu[3]: In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC applies only to acts performed in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial powers and does not extend to acts performed in an administrative capacity.
State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Dattatraya Apar[4]: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC applies only to acts performed by public servants in good faith and within the scope of their official duties and not to acts of omission or commission that are mala fide or beyond the scope of their official duties.
K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu[5]: This case dealt with the issue of whether the prior sanction was required before a public servant could be prosecuted for an act performed in the discharge of his official duties. The Supreme Court held that prior sanction was required before the prosecution could be initiated against a public servant under the judicial act exception in Section 197 of the IPC.
These cases provide guidance on the scope and application of the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC and have helped to clarify the rights and obligations of public servants in the performance of their official duties.
Executive acts as a general exception and what makes it different from judicial acts
The executive act exception under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a provision in Section 197 of the code that exempts public servants and persons acting under the direction of a public servant from criminal liability for acts performed in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. This provision applies to acts performed by executive officials, such as government employees and officers, in the course of their official duties and provides immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in good faith in the performance of such duties. The purpose of this exception is to ensure that public servants are able to perform their duties without fear of being sued for criminal offences and to prevent frivolous or malicious lawsuits from being filed against them. However, prior sanction from the appropriate authority is required before criminal proceedings can be initiated against a public servant under this exception.
Analysis regarding the judicial and executive acts
The judicial act exception under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) serves an important role in protecting public servants, including judges and magistrates, from frivolous or malicious lawsuits arising from actions taken in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. This exception helps to ensure that public servants can carry out their duties without fear of legal harassment, which is essential for the effective functioning of the justice system.
However, the scope and application of the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC have been the subject of debate and legal interpretation in several cases. Some critics argue that this exception provides too much protection for public servants, allowing them to escape accountability for actions that may have been taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties.
Issues
The scope and application of the judicial act exception under Section 197[6] of the IPC have been the subject of legal interpretation in several cases, with some critics arguing that this exception provides too much protection for public servants and allows them to escape accountability for actions taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties.
For example, the Supreme Court of India has held that the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC applies only to acts performed by a judge in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and does not cover acts performed in administrative or executive capacities. This interpretation helps to ensure that public servants are not immune from prosecution for acts taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties.
Another issue with the judicial act exception under Section 197[7] of the IPC is that it requires prior sanction from the appropriate authority before criminal proceedings can be initiated against a public servant. In some cases, this requirement has been criticized for being too burdensome, as it can result in delays in prosecuting public servants for criminal offences.
Suggestions regarding the judicial and executive act exceptions of IPC
One suggestion to address these concerns could be to clarify the definition of “good faith” under Section 197 of the IPC so that it better captures the essence of what constitutes an act performed in good faith. This could help to ensure that public servants are not immune from prosecution for acts of bad faith or malicious intent.
Another suggestion could be to provide a mechanism for the review of decisions regarding prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the IPC so that individuals who believe that they have been wrongly denied the right to prosecute a public servant can have their case heard and reviewed.
Overall, it is important to strike a balance between protecting public servants from baseless lawsuits and ensuring accountability for actions taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties. A careful review and re-evaluation of the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC, along with the suggestions outlined above, could help to achieve this balance.
Importance and need in the present scenario
The judicial and executive act exceptions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) serve an important function in protecting public servants from baseless or malicious lawsuits arising from actions taken in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. These exceptions ensure that public servants can perform their duties without fear of legal harassment, which is essential for the effective functioning of the justice system and the administration of government.
However, the scope and application of these exceptions have been the subject of debate and legal interpretation in several cases, with some critics arguing that they provide too much protection for public servants and allow them to escape accountability for actions taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties.
To address these concerns, suggestions have been made to clarify the definition of “good faith” under Section 197 of the IPC and to provide for a mechanism for review of decisions regarding prior sanction for prosecution. A careful review and re-evaluation of the judicial and executive act exceptions under Section 197 of the IPC could help to strike a balance between protecting public servants from baseless lawsuits and ensuring accountability for actions taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties.
Conclusion
In summary, the judicial and executive act exceptions under the IPC play a crucial role in the functioning of the justice system and the administration of government, but it is essential to ensure that they are applied in a manner that balances the protection of public servants and the need for accountability. The judicial act exception under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is an important provision that provides immunity from criminal prosecution for public servants, including judges and magistrates, for acts performed in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. This exception is intended to protect public servants from frivolous or malicious lawsuits, which could have a chilling effect on the administration of justice.
To address these concerns, some have suggested that the definition of “good faith” under Section 197 of the IPC be clarified so that it better captures the essence of what constitutes an act performed in good faith. Additionally, a mechanism for review of decisions regarding prior sanction for the prosecution could be established, to ensure that individuals who believe that they have been wrongly denied the right to prosecute a public servant have their case heard and reviewed.
In conclusion, while the judicial act exception under the IPC serves an important function in protecting public servants from baseless or malicious lawsuits, it is important to ensure that it is applied in a manner that balances the protection of public servants and the need for accountability. A careful review and re-evaluation of the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC, along with appropriate reforms and clarifications, could help to achieve this balance.
Endnotes:
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Act no. 45 of 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 76, Act no. 45 of 1860
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 SCC (6) 632
State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Dattatraya Apar, (1981) 83 BOMLR 553
K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1996 SCC (2) 226
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 197, Act no. 45 of 1860
Ibid
This article is written by Prashant Prasad, a second-year law student from University Law College.
Xiaomi was founded in 2010 by serial entrepreneur Lei Jun, who believes that high-quality technology doesn’t need to cost a fortune. We create remarkable hardware, software, and internet services for and with the help of our Mi fans. Every company has a mission. Ours is to bring ‘Innovation for Everyone.’ Having a global presence, and being a tech behemoth, Xiaomi moved up 72 spots ranking #266, in the ‘Fortune Global 500’ list for the 4th consecutive year.
Intern Job Responsibilities
Conduct legal research in areas as diverse as company law, payment-related laws, competition law, intellectual property laws, IT and privacy law, legal metrology, arbitration and conciliation law etc..
Intern Job Duties
Work with the legal team to draft and review various agreements including novation agreements, brand license agreements, software license agreements, co-branding agreements, non-disclosure agreements, terms of service documents, marketing agreements, master services agreements, franchise agreements, IP licensing agreements, lease agreements, other commercial and technology-related agreements.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
AMLEGALS is a multi disciplinary & strategy driven full Service Law Firm. Their areas of practice include, GST/VAT- advisory & litigation, Arbitration-Domestic & International, M&A and IPO – Due Diligence among others. They operate in 14 cities in India and abroad with various Associates and/or Affiliates. They are present in Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Dubai, Gurgaon, Kolkata and Mumbai through our own offices and affiliate associates throughout India, and almost 50 Advocates, Consultants & Paralegal to cater the legal requirements.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Assisting in all new as well as existing cases of the firm
Assisting in all litigation as well as non-litigation work in every manner including case preparations, drafting, filing, hearing preparation, Court appearances, meeting the clients’ requirement, etc.
Drafting and assisting in White Papers and Content Creation for the Firm on a daily basis.
Maintaining a report of ongoing cases and updating clients on case progress.
The candidate should be well versed with the nuances of drafting and research and should have prior experience in litigation, advisory and contract drafting / vetting.
The candidate should be capable of working independently as well as within a team while yielding good results.
The candidate should be confident, dynamic, and should possess good oratory and analytical skills.
The candidate should have the ability to set priorities and work efficiently in a timeline-oriented environment.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
The current review petition in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Chandervir Singh Negi has been filed on the grounds that defendants/the State were ordered to begin the acquisition procedures for the land in question within three months of the judgment’s entry and to conclude those proceedings within one year of that date in order to acquire the land. It was argued that the court’s orders are invalid and should be amended, and that the plaintiff, ChanderVir Singh Negi’s action should be dismissed since the plaintiff had previously given the state of Himachal Pradesh the land utilised for the building of the road on June 28, 2016.
FACTS:
Feeling resentful and unsatisfied with the contested judgement and order dated 09.08.2019 issued by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Shimla in Regular Second Appeal No. 270 of 2007 by which the High Court allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgement and decree issued by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit and subsequently decreeing the suit directing the appellant to file an appeal.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT:
The original plaintiff filed the lawsuit before the experienced Trial Court in order to obtain a declaration, a mandatory injunction, and a directive instructing the appellants in this case—original defendants—to begin and finish the acquisition proceedings with regard to the plaintiff’s land and any harm to his fruit-bearing trees. Without following the rules of the Land Acquisition Act, the plaintiff claims that the appellants in this case—original defendant nos. 1, 2, and 3—built the “TikkariLarot Bodra Kwar road” on his or her property without paying him or her any compensation. The fruit-bearing plants also sustained harm.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT:
The initial defendants disputed the lawsuit, arguing, among other things, that the claim was waived because the plaintiff waived his right to compensation because the road was built with his consent in 1987 while he was working as a Mate in the Department and in accordance with his request. They also claimed that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the plaintiff is eligible for the declaration relief that has been requested for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is eligible for the compensation claimed?
3. Whether or not the case cannot be maintained?
4. If the lawsuit has run out of time?
5. Whether his actions and behaviour estop the plaintiff from bringing the case?
6. Does the lawsuit need to be correctly appraised for court costs and jurisdictional purposes?7. Whether the plaintiff lacks a legal claim?
8. Relief?
JUDGMENT:
The First Appellate Court upheld the challenged decision and order issued by the High Court as well as the conclusions noted by the knowledgeable Trial Court. According to the plaintiff’s witnesses’ depositions, the retaining wall and the parcel of land in dispute were both built in 1987 on the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff’s witnesses confirmed that fruit trees were damaged or destroyed in 1987, and the suit’s claimed cause of action was the building of the road in that year. In exercising its authority under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court should not have interfered with the factual findings in light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances.
The High Court’s contested decision and order should be annulled and overturned because they lack merit. In regards to the restriction and/or the litigation being barred by limitation, the High Court has not established any significant legal issues. The reality remains that the plaintiff’s land is where the retaining/protection wall was built in 2003, the road was built in 1987, and any trees were damaged or destroyed in the same year. Because the lawsuit was filed in 2003, it was time-barred under Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act.
Bombay High Court while hearing the writ petition on 24thFebruary, 2023 in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Petitioner) Versus Union of India & Ors (Respondents) allows the writ petition subject to compliance of conditions.
FACTS:
In the present case, the Petitioner is seeking permission for the execution of the proposed project of a suction tank for providing water supply (basic necessity) to the citizens of Gorai Village who are facing a shortage of water supply in their vicinity. The project is being developed on the land owned by the State Government and the said project is partly affected by the mangrove buffer zone area.
Respondents no. 1-5 have granted sanction and NOC subject to no destruction to the mangroves due to construction and subject to the permission of this Hon’ble Court for construction in the mangrove buffer zone. The Respondents have also reserved their rights concerning revocation and suspension of sanctions granted in case of non-compliance with conditions. Another clause concerning a fresh application/proposal is to be filed by the petitioners in case of alteration/ deviation of the proposed project.
The Respondents stated that all the sufficient safeguards in respect of environmental protection in the due course of construction and until completion of the project be taken into consideration.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:
The petitioner contended before this hon’ble court to permit them to execute the proposed project.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:
The respondents (except Respondent no. 6) agreed on the permit subject to compliance with the conditions mentioned in the sanction. However, Respondent no. 6 contended that the proposal should not differ from the actual work and stay be granted.
JUDGEMENT:
The Hon’ble Court after hearing all the facts in the present case allowed the writ petition for the public interest on the following grounds :
1. The petitioners are to apply for fresh permission in case of alteration/deviation in the proposed project.
2. Undertaking by a responsible officer of the Petitioner concerning compliance of all the conditions in sanction granted be filed within 1 week from the date of this order i.e 24th February, 2023, and copy to be served to the Respondents.
3. IA no. 4655 of 2022 stands disposed of.
4. Rejected the stay applied by Respondent no. 6 at this stage of the matter.
