Relief on defence transfer order only in “rarest of rare” cases: Bombay HC

Relief on defence transfer order only in "rarest of rare" cases: Bombay HC
Relief on defence transfer order only in “rarest of rare” cases: Bombay HC

Observing that transfer orders of the Defence Ministry can be cancelled only in “rarest of rare” circumstances, the Bombay High Court today asked an army officer to find out if facilities for taking care of his mentally and physically disabled child are available in the city where he is to be transferred.

A division bench of Chief Justice Manjula Chellur and Justice M S Sonak was hearing a petition filed by Lt Col Anil Kumar Yadav challenging his transfer to Hyderabad from Mumbai.

According to Yadav, who has been posted in Mumbai for five years, his 12-year-old son is blind and hearing impaired and is also mentally retarded.

“The son has been undergoing treatment at Helen Keller Institute since five years. He needs constant care and attention. To uproot him now would not be proper,” Yadav’s lawyer Gayatri Singh said.

The court, however, sought to know if such facility or institution was available in Hyderabad.

“He (Yadav) cannot expect his son to remain in Helen Keller Institute forever. In Hyderabad also there might be several institutes which can take care of such children. It is not like the petitioner is being posted in a place where no facility is available. Hyderabad is a developed city,” the high court said.

“If one person is given the benefit then everyone will come asking for the same relief. Only in rarest of rare circumstances we can allow such reliefs. Some balance needs to be maintained from both the sides. If such institutes are not there in Hyderabad, then find out if any other city has such facilities. The army can transfer you (Yadav) to that city then,” the bench said.

The court posted the petition for further hearing next week and stayed the transfer order till then.

( Source – PTI )

HC junks PIL seeking repeal of State Act

bhcThe Bombay High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) which sought to discontinue or repeal Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act of 1977 on the ground that a Central Act with same benefits for rural population has come into the effect from 2005.

The PIL prayed that the Central law i.e Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act of 2005 be allowed to continue in place of the State law i.e Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act, 1977.

The petitioner — Aam Aadmi Lokmanch — also prayed that collection of funds under the State law — Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act — be discontinued till the petition is disposed of.

However, the court refused to entertain the PIL saying the allegations were general in nature and not specific.

A division bench of Chief Justice Dr Manjula Chellur and Justice M S Sonak, dismissed the petition while observing that both the enactments, State as well as Central, are welfare legislation in the light of Directive Principles of the State Policy enshrined in the Constitution.

“Instead of getting benefit under one statute if citizens of this country are entitled to get two benefits, both under the State enactment and the Central Act, we fail to understand in the absence of any repugnancy between the two enactments how we could grant prayers sought in the petition by deleting such a provision or repealing Maharashtra Employment Guarantee Act?,” asked the court.

“If there is any violation of utilisation of funds or misappropriation or diversion of funds by any authority or individual person having the charge of the funds, it is always open to the public to bring to the notice of the authorities concerned the malfunctioning of the system or mechanism meant for achieving social justice through these two enactments,” the bench further observed.

“By general allegations (in the PIL) without ascribing any particular inaction of an authority, we are afraid that none of prayers could be entertained. Accordingly, the PIL is dismissed,” the bench held in a recent judgement.

HC dismisses PIL in godman episode invlvng CM wife


Mumbai, The Bombay High Court today refused to hear a public interest litigation seeking inquiry by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and CBI into the alleged incident of a self-styled godman giving a necklace to Maharastra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’s wife Amruta.

A division bench of Chief Justice D H Waghela and Justice M S Sonak asked petitioner Anil Kokane to approach the concerned authority with a representation.

“The petitioner has sought investigation into the alleged activities and collusion between respondent 1 (Amruta Fadnavis) and respondent 2 (Guru Guruvanand Swamy). But the petitioner has not made any complaints before any authority before approaching this court. In such circumstances, this court cannot hear the petition,” the court said.

The court permitted Kokane to withdraw his PIL and file representation or complaint before the concerned authority.

Kokane in this PIL sought direction to ED, CBI and Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to conduct inquiry with respect to alleged “religious, political and financial collusion between Amruta Fadnavis and the self-styled godman”.

“Amruta should also apologise to the general public for promoting such fraudsters (Godmen),” the petition sought.

The petition states that on February 9 this year Guruvanand Swamy of Tirupati in South India presented a necklace to Amruta from thin air allegedly using his tantric powers. “The next day (10/2/16) Amruta said the Guru is highly qualified and well reputed,” the petition claimed.

Eating beef not a fundamental right: Maha govt tells HC

beefIt is not a fundamental right of a citizen to eat beef and the state legislation can regulate consumption of flesh of animals, the Maharashtra government today told the Bombay High Court.

Advocate General Sunil Manohar made this submission while opposing a bunch of petitions challenging the ban on slaughter of cows, bulls and bullocks, and consumption and possession of their meat, introduced under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act.

He said that the petitioners’ contention that a person can eat anything he wishes to other than human flesh cannot be accepted.

“It is not a fundamental right of a citizen to eat beef. It cannot be said that the government cannot take away these rights. The state legislation can regulate consumption of flesh of any animal the source of which is reprehensible. Under the Animal Protection Act, there is a prohibition on consumption of wild boar, deer and other animals,” Manohar argued.

The petitions have challenged only sections 5 (d) and 9 (a) of the Act, which prohibit possession and consumption of meat of cow, bulls and bullocks even if the animals have been slaughtered outside Maharashtra. According to the petitions, this puts a ban on import of meat.

Senior counsel Aspi Chinoy, appearing for one of the petitioners, had argued that such a ban on consumption was violative of the fundamental right of a person to have his choice of food.

The state government in an affidavit filed yesterday, however, refuted this contention.

The Advocate General said there are several other food items that provide the same nutrition as that of beef.

He further argued that if section 5 (d), which prohibits possession and consumption of beef, is struck down, then the Act would remain only on paper and it would frustrate the purpose and its object which is to protect cow progeny.

A division bench of justices V M Kanade and M S Sonak will continue hearing the arguments tomorrow.

HC asks civic body to appoint more doctors in neo-natal course

The Bombay High has asked Municipal Corporation of Greater to submit within a week a representation to the Medical Council of (MCI) for increasing the number of resident doctors in the postgraduate course of neo-natal speciality.

A copy of such representation should be endorsed to Government of India in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, said a bench headed by Chief Justice yesterday.

The HC further directed the MCI to take a decision within two months from the date of receipt of representation.

The bench also asked the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to take up the matter with the MCI for taking a positive stand on the issue.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on January 19.

The court was hearing a suo moto on the issue of neo-natal deaths across the state on a report published in a city newspaper. The report said premature babies were turned away from Mumbai’s civic hospitals due to shortage of Neo-Natal Intensive Care Units (NICUs).

Additional government pleader Milind More informed the court that the state government had complied with the norms laid down by the Centre on facilities and doctors.

Counsel for Municipal Corporation stated that there has been a mistake on the part of the departments of the civic body in not sending a representation to MCI for increasing the number of resident doctors in the postgraduate course of neonatal speciality.

The BMC had approached the High Court earlier after the MCI rejected its request to relax norms for more neonatal care course seats.

Following the hearing, a bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice M S Sonak had directed the BMC to make a representation before MCI within two weeks.

HC rejects Om Puri’s petition challenging maintenance to wife

om puriThe Bombay High Court has rejected a petition filed by actor Om Puri challenging a family court order asking him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs 2.90 lakh to his wife Nandita and minor son.

The family court has asked the actor to pay interim monthly maintenance of Rs 1.25 lakh to his wife and Rs 50,000 to his child. In addition, the court had asked him to pay Rs 1.15 lakh per month towards medical and education expenses of his son which he had voluntarily agreed to give.

Puri contended that the family court order was not fair as the maintenance ordered to be paid did not commensurate with his income.

Justice M S Sonak, hearing Puri’s petition yesterday, disagreed with the actor saying the family court order was reasonable and had been passed while taking into consideration all the aspects, including monthly income of the petitioner.

The court referred to Puri’s income tax returns for the relevant period 2009 to 2012, which stated annual income in the range of Rs 1.53 crore to Rs 3.34 crore.

The High Court refused to interfere with the family court’s order saying the maintenance amount awarded to his wife and son was not disproportionate to the actor’s income.
Both the family court and the High Court had observed that the maintenance to Puri’s wife and son was granted on the basis of financial status of the parties involved.

The family court had held that while the wife had no sufficient source of income, Puri had a sound financial background.

Puri had filed a divorce petition in 2012 while his estranged wife had filed an application for interim maintenance. Nandita said she is a housewife and has no source of income. She further claimed the actor earned around Rs 35 lakh to Rs 45 lakh a month.

Puri countered the claims and alleged that the petition was filed with the motive of usurping his properties and harassing him. He also said he was a responsible and dutiful father and husband and took care of all the educational expenses of his child.

HC allows Pak singer Sami to go abroad for concert

Adnan SamiThe Bombay high court has allowed Pakistani singer Adnan Sami, locked in a legal battle with his former wife Sabah Galadari, to visit Australia in July for a concert but pulled him up for failing to comply with its earlier orders of furnishing sureties.

Granting interim relief, Justice M S Sonak on Friday allowed an application filed by Sami through advocate Amit Ghag seeking nod for overseas tour, but with the condition that he would furnish the sureties by July 31.

“The applicant seems to be taking the court orders lightly. He has not complied with the orders since January,” the Judge said.

Sami was recently allowed to visit Pakistan to meet his ailing mother. He sought permission to retain his passport to visit Perth and Brisbane in Australia for a music show between July 5 and July 17.

His passport had been seized by police after his two sureties withdrew the undertaking that he would be available in India to face the trial.

Edith De, counsel for Galadari, opposed Sami’s plea, saying the singer has failed to complete the formalities of submitting sureties before the trial court.

The judge allowed Sami to visit Australia but directed him to furnish fresh sureties by July 31.

The high court, in June 2011, had relaxed conditions of Sami’s anticipatory bail wherein he had to take prior permission from court every time to travel abroad.

However, the HC had asked Sami to give undertaking to get two sureties who would give personal bond of Rs 1.5 crore.

A surety is a person or a firm that agrees to be liable for the conduct or obligation of another person.

Last year, his two sureties withdrew the bond and undertaking and hence he has to once again approach the High Court for permission to travel abroad.

Adnan and Galadari are locked in a legal battle. The couple got married in 2001 and divorced in 2004. However, they remarried in 2007 and once again split in 2009. Ever since they are engaged in court cases filed against each other.

Galadari lodged a domestic violence complaint against Sami here in April 2009.

(Source: PTI)

Former Shiv Sena MLA granted bail

shiv senaMNS leader and former Shiv Sena MLA Parshuram Uparkar was today granted bail by Bombay High Court in connection with a case in which he was charged with stopping police from discharging duty in 2008 at Malvan in Sindhudurg district.

Justice M S Sonak granted him bail in the sum of Rs 25,000 on a plea made by his lawyers Archit Sakhalkar and Rajendra Shirodkar.

The judge admitted Uparkar’s appeal against his conviction and called for records and proceedings of the case from the trial, while placing the matter for hearing after two months.

Uparkar was booked on March 3, 2008, when he was leading a procession of around 200 Shiv Sena workers to Tahsildar’s office to agitate over a local issue. He was stopped by police along with the workers from entering the office, following which there was a scuffle.

Uparkar, who was Shiv Sena MLA at that time, and two others were booked under Section 353 of IPC for disturbing police from performing duty. All the three were convicted by a local Magistrate for the offence. They went in appeal in a Sessions court which convicted Uparkar but acquitted the other two.

The Magistrate had sentenced them to one year imprisonment. However, the punishment was reduced to one month by the Sessions court.

Being aggrieved, Uparkar filed an appeal in the High Court.

Uparkar’s lawyers argued that the trial court had erred in convicting them as they were merely participating in a political agitation.

(Source: PTI)