While demonstrating supreme concern on the innumerable sufferings faced by the migrant labourers, the Supreme Court as recently as on June 29, 2021 in a latest, learned, laudable and landmark judgment titled In Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2020 with Writ Petition (C) No. 916 of 2020 in exercise of its civil original jurisdiction has minced absolutely just no words to make it pretty clear that the fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution may be interpreted to include right to live with human dignity, which may include the right to food and other basic necessities. The top court has directed all the States to implement the “one nation, one ration card” scheme and to run community kitchens for migrants. It also very rightly postulated that, “The Right to Life as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution gives right to every human being to live a life of dignity with access to at least bare necessities of life.”
To start with, this notable 80-page judgment authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan for himself and Justice MR Shah sets the ball rolling right from the scratch by first and foremost observing in para 1 that, “The Worldwide Pandemic COVID-19 engulfed this country in March, 2020 and continues till date changing its face from time to time. Different mutations in the virus have made it dangerous and fatal at times. The pandemic had affected each and every person in the world including all citizens of this country. The pandemic has adversely affected all businesses including the small scale businesses, industries, markets and smallest of the person.”
While highlighting the plight and cause of plight of migrant labourers, the Bench then puts forth in para 2 that, “One of the groups, which were severally affected by the pandemic, was the migrant labouers. When Nationwide Lockdown was declared on 24.03.2020, after few days, there was huge exodus of the migrant labourers from their place of work to their native places. Two primary reasons which resulted in the exodus were cessation of employment due to lockdown and fear of the pandemic. When large number of migrant labourers started walking on highways on foot, cycles and other modes of transports without food and facing several untold miseries, this Court suo motu took cognizance of the problems and miseries of the migrant labourers by its order dated 26.05.2020 on which date, this Suo Motu Writ Petition had been registered. We had issued the notice to the Union of India and all States / Union Territories and directed the learned Solicitor General to assist the Court and by the next date of hearing bring in the notice of the Court all measures and steps taken by the Government of India and to be taken in this regard.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then discloses in para 3 that, “In pursuance of our order dated 26.05.2020 affidavits were filed. Apart from filing of affidavit by the Central Government, States/Union Territories, few persons also filed intervention application in this writ petition bringing into notice of this Court several facts, figures and suggested different measures for ameliorating the conditions of the migrant labourers. One of the major issues, which, at that time, was to be tackled by the States and Union Territories was the transportation of migrant labourers from their work place to their native places.”
While elaborating on the directions it had issued, the Bench then envisages in para 4 that, “We had issued certain directions on 28.05.2020 and thereafter issued further directions on 09.06.2020, in paragraph 26 of which order, we noticed following:-
“26. As noted above, the State and Union Territories in their affidavits have referred to various measures, the orders and guidelines issued by the Central Government, the orders issued by the National Executive Committee under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, policies and decisions taken by the concerned States. The States and Union Territories claimed to be following all directions and policies and taking necessary steps for running the relief camps, shelter camps, attending the needs of food and water of the migrants, attending the requirement of transportation of migrant workers to their native places. There can be no exception to the policies and intentions of the State but what is important is that those on whom implementation of circulars, policies and schemes are entrusted are efficiently and correctly implementing those schemes. Lapses and short-comings in implementing the schemes and policies have been highlighted by various intervenors in their applications and affidavits. The responsibility of the States/Union Territories is not only to referring their policy, measures contemplated, funds allocated but there has to be strict vigilance and supervision as to whether those measures, schemes, benefits reaches to those to whom they are meant. We impress on States and Union Territories to streamline the vigilance and supervision of actions of their officers and staff and take appropriate action where required. We also have no doubt that most of the officers, staff of administration and police are discharging their duties with devotion and hard-work but the lapses have to be taken note of and remedial action be taken. We further notice from the materials on record that police officers of States, para-military forces wherever deployed are doing commendable job but some instances of excess with regard to migrant labourers are also there. The migrant labourers, who were forced to proceed to their native place, after cessation of their employment are already suffering. The Financial difficulty being with all the migrant labourers invariably they have to dealt by the police and other authorities in a humane manner. The concerned Director General of Police/Police Commissioner may issue necessary directions in this regard.””
In addition, the Bench then states in para 5 that, “Further eight directions were issued by this Court by Order dated 09.06.2020, which were to the following effect:-
“35. We, thus, in addition to directions already issued by our order dated 28.05.2020 and measures as directed above, issue following further directions to the Central Government, all States and Union Territories: (1) All the States/Union Territories shall take all necessary steps regarding identification of stranded migrant workers in their State which are willing to return to their native places and take steps for their return journey by train/bus which process may be completed within a period of 15 days from today.
(2) In event of any additional demand, in addition to demand of 171 Shramik trains, as noticed above, railway shall provide Shramik trains within a period of 24 hours as submitted by learned Solicitor General to facilitate the return journey of migrant workers.
(3) The Central Government may give details of all schemes which can be availed by migrant workers who have returned to their native places.
(4) All States and Union Territories shall also give details of all schemes which are current in the State, benefit of which can be taken by the migrant labourers including different schemes for providing employment.
(5) The State shall establish counselling centres, help desk at block and district level to provide all necessary information regarding schemes of the Government and to extend helping hand to migrant labourers to identify avenues of employment and benefits which can be availed by them under the different schemes.
(6) The details of all migrant labourers, who have reached their native places, shall be maintained with details of their skill, nature of employment, earlier place of employment. The list of migrant labourers shall be maintained village wise, block wise and district wise to facilitate the administration to extend benefit of different schemes which may be applicable to such migrant workers.
(7) The counselling centres, established, as directed above, shall also provide necessary information by extending helping hand to those migrant workers who have returned to their native places and who want to return to their places of employment.
(8) All concerned States/UTs to consider withdrawal of prosecution/complaints under Section 51 of Disaster Management Act and other related offences lodged against the migrant labourers who alleged to have violated measures of Lockdown by moving on roads during the period of Lockdown enforced under Disaster Management Act, 2005.””
Briefly stated, the Bench then also reveals in para 6 that, “In pursuance of our directions dated 09.06.2020, all States/Union Territories took steps and within a short period, migrant labourers were transported to their native places. On 31.07.2020, the matter was again heard. We, in our order dated 09.06.2020, had referred to following three enactments:-
i) Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service)Act, 1979;
ii) Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996; and
iii) Unorganized Workers’ Social Security Act, 2008.”
While elaborating further, the Bench then suavely adds in para 7 that, “We had directed all the States to file their response in respect to implementation of the aforesaid three enactments. On 31.07.2020, we further granted three weeks’ time to the States to file affidavit in compliance to order dated 09.06.2020. In pursuance of our orders dated 09.06.2020 and 31.07.2020, Central Government, States and Union Territories took various measures to implement the orders of this Court and to remedy the grievances of the migrant labourers. The measures taken by different Governments although could not fully ameliorate the conditions of the migrant labourers but brought some solace in the first wave of pandemic and willing migrant labourers reached their native places. It has also been submitted that after few months, large number of migrant labourers again proceeded to their work place in search of employment since at their native place, they were not able to get suitable employment to sustain themselves.”
Going ahead, the Bench then also while dwelling on the corona pandemic brought out in para 8 that, “The Covid-19, which was declared pandemic by World Health Organisation on 30th January, 2020 continues even today. The intensity of the pandemic varied from time to time, after March, 2021, the second wave of pandemic hit the country and the number of cases started increasing throughout the country. The different States including NCT Delhi took different measures including restrictions, night curfews and lockdown in April, 2021. There has been the migrant workers working at several places including NCT Delhi, State of Maharashtra, State of Gujarat, State of Karnataka, who again started proceeding to their native places fearing the same situation which occurred in first nationwide lockdown, which was imposed in March, 2020. An I.A. No.58769 of 2021 was filed in the writ petition seeking directions from the Court specifically praying for direction to distribute dry ration to migrant workers, facilitating their transport either by road or by train to their native places and with request to direct for running of community kitchen for migrant labourers so that they and their family members could get two meals a day.”
In hindsight, while recalling its own interim directions, the Bench then elucidated in para 9 stating that, “On 13.05.2021, we while entertaining the petition and asking the few States for reply, issued following interim directions:-
“[2.0] After having heard learned counsel for the parties we direct the Central Government as well as the Government of State of NCT of Delhi, State of U.P. and State of Haryana (for the Districts included in the NCR) to file a reply to the application suggesting means and measures by which they shall ameliorate miseries of stranded migrant labourers. We also issue notice on the application to State of Maharashtra, State of Gujarat and State of Bihar to file their reply giving the details of the measures which they propose to take to ameliorate the miseries of migrant workers regarding transportation of stranded migrant workers and providing dry ration as well as cooked meals to the stranded migrant workers. In the meantime, 7 we issue following interim directions:
(1) Dry ration to migrant workers in National Capital Region under Atma Nirbhar Bharat Scheme or any other scheme be provided by the Union of India, NCT of Delhi, State of U.P. and State of Haryana utilising the Public Distribution System prevalent in each State with effect from May, 2021. While providing dry ration the authorities of the States shall not insist on an identity card for those migrant labourers who do not possess for the time being and on self-declaration made by the stranded migrant labourers dry ration be given to them.
(2) NCT of Delhi, State of U.P. and State of Haryana (for the Districts included in the NCR) shall ensure that adequate transport is provided to stranded migrant labourers (in the National Capital Region) who want to return to their home. The District Administration in coordination with Police Administration may identify such stranded migrant labourers and facilitate their transport either by road transport or train. The Union of India may also issue necessary instructions to Ministry of Railways to take necessary and adequate measures to cater the need of migrant labourers.
(3) NCT of Delhi, State of U.P. and State of Haryana (for the Districts included in the NCR) shall open community kitchen at well advertised places (in the National Capital Region) for stranded migrant labourers so that they and their family members who are stranded could get two meals a day.””
In retrospect, the Bench then again recalled in para 10 that, “Subsequent to the order dated 13.05.2021, the matter was again heard by this Court on 24.05.2021 and in paragraphs 14 and 15, we had made following directions:-
“14. The Union of India in its letter dated 26.04.2020, which has been brought on record as Annexure R-14 has also stated that efforts should be made by States/Union Territories to encourage migrant NFSA beneficiaries to use the facility of portability under One Nation One Ration Card (ONORC) to those migrants.
15. We, thus, direct that migrant workers wherever stranded throughout the country should be provided the dry ration under the Atma Nirbhar Scheme or any other scheme is found suitable by the States/Centre.””
To say the least, the Bench then stated in para 11 that, “The writ petition again came for hearing before this Court on 11.06.2021, on which day, after hearing learned counsel for the parties including learned counsel for the intervenors, we closed the hearing.”
Most significantly, the Bench then observes in para 32 which forms the cornerstone of this brief, brilliant, balanced and bold judgment that, “There has been worldwide awareness regarding right to food to human being. Our country is no exception. Lately, all Governments have been taking steps and taking measures to ensure that no human being should be affected by hunger and no one dies out of hunger. The basic concept of food security globally is to ensure that all people, at all times, should get access to the basic food for their active and healthy life. The Constitution of India does not have any explicit provision regarding right to food. The fundamental right to life enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution may be interpreted to include right to live with human dignity, which may include the right to food and other basic necessities.”
Finally, the Bench then holds in para 80 that, “In view of the foregoing discussions and our conclusions, we dispose of the writ petitions with the following directions:-
(i) It is directed that the Central Government to develop the Portal in consultation with National Informatics Centre (NIC) for registration of the unorganized labourers/migrant workers. We also impress upon and direct that the Central Government as well as the respective States and the Union Territories to complete the process of Portal for registration under National Data Base for Unorganised Workers (NDUW Project) as well as implement the same, which by all means may commence not later than 31.07.2021. We also impress upon and direct that the process of registration of the unorganized labourers/migrant workers is completed at the earliest, but not later than 31.12.2021. All the concerned States/Union Territories and the Licence Holders/Contractors and others to cooperate with the Central Government to complete the process of registration of migrant workers and unorganized labourers so that the benefits of the welfare schemes declared by the Central Government/State Governments/ Union Territories be available to migrant workers and unorganized labourers for whose benefits the welfare schemes are declared.
(ii) The Central Government having undertaken to distribute additional quantity of foodgrains as demanded by the States/Union Territories for distribution to migrant labourers under some Scheme framed by the States, we direct the Central Government, Department of Food and Public Distribution (Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution) to allocate and distribute foodgrains as per demand of additional food-grains from the States for disbursement of dry foodgrains to migrant labourers.
(iii) We direct the States to bring in place an appropriate scheme for distribution of dry ration to migrant labourers for which it shall be open for States to ask for allocation of additional foodgrains from the Central Government, which, as directed above, shall provide the additional foodgrains to the State. The State shall consider and bring an appropriate Scheme, which may be implemented on or before 31.07.2021. Such scheme may be continued and operated till the current pandemic (Covid-19) continues.
(iv) The States, who have not yet implemented “One Nation One Ration Card” scheme are directed to implement the same by not later than 31.07.2021.
(v) The Central Government may undertake exercise under Section 9 of the National Food Security Act, 2013 to re-determine the total number of persons to be covered under the Rural and Urban areas of the State.
(vi) We direct all the States/Union Territories to register all establishments and license all contractors under the Act, 1979 and ensure that statutory duty imposed on the contractors to give particulars of migrant workers is fully complied with.
(vii) The State/Union Territories are directed to run community kitchens at prominent places where large number of migrant labourers are found for feeding those migrant labourers who does not have sufficient means to procure two meals a day. The running of the community kitchen should be continued at-least till pandemic (Covid-19) continues.”
In essence, all the States and the Central Government must comply with what has been explicitly, elegantly and effectively directed by the two Judge Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice MR Shah as stated hereinabove. Centre as also all the States must take this commendable, cogent and courageous yet composed judgment in the right spirit and take all necessary steps to comply with what has been laid down in this noteworthy judgment. The Apex Court has rightly underscored that right to life under Article 21 includes right to food and other basic necessities.
The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.
For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.
AN ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATE BODIES CAN ESTABLISH A CAPTIVE POWER PLANT PRIMARILY FOR THEIR OWN USE UNDER THE ELECTRICITY ACT: SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court in the case Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd. vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission observed that a captive power plant primarily for their own use can be established by an association of corporate bodies.
The requirement would be that the consumption of SBIPL and SBMPL together should not be less than 51% of the power generated. Admittedly, the joint consumption by SBIPL and SBMPL is more than 51% and under the provisions of the said Act, the use of electricity by it would be for captive use only even an association of corporate bodies can establish a power plant. Since SBMPL holds 27.6% of the ownership, the requirement of not less than 26% of shares is fulfilled by SBMPL as SBMPL holds 27.6% equity shares in SBPIL.
The fourth proviso to subsection (2) of Section 42 of the said Act would also reveal that surcharge would not be leviable in case open access is provided to a person who has established a captive generating plant for carrying the electricity to the destination of his own use and under Section 9 of the said Act, could be an individual or a body corporate or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, it is clear that the person will get benefit even an association of corporate bodies can establish a captive power plant it has been seen. The definition of “person” is wide enough to include any company or body corporate or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or artificial juridical person it should be primarily for the use of the members of such cooperative society or association is the requirement, the Bench observed while referring to the provisions of the Electricity Act.
The BPIL, the respondent contended and supported the impugned judgment that no permission is required from the Commission for supply of electricity for its own use. Thereafter the appellant Company contended that unless SBPIL consumes 51% of the aggregate electricity generated by it, it will not be entitled to get the benefit under Section 9 of the said Act, in an appeal filled before the Apex Court.
An appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity filed by the Company further The Commission held that SBPIL was entitled to supply electricity to its sister concern SBMPL and the same would qualify to be treating as own consumption and within the ambit of Section 9 read with Section 2(8) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 SBPIL submitted a petition for providing open access and wheeling of power through the transmission system of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Ltd (Company) for captive use by SBMPL to the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission, the commission. A Captive Generation Plant is established by SBPIL, and is a sister concern of SBPIL Shri Bajrang Power and I spat Ltd and Shri Bajrang Metallics and Power Ltd, SBMPL.
Where the crime was committed the remission or premature release policy of the state has to be considered: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in the case Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah, Lala Vakil vs State of Gujarat observed that where the crime was committed has to be considered in the remission or premature release in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State.
While allowing the writ petition the court observed and contended that Once the crime was committed in the State of Gujarat, after the trial been concluded and judgment of conviction came to be passed, all further proceedings have to be 6 considered including remission or premature release in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State of Gujarat where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred and concluded for exceptional reasons under the orders of this Court, as the case may be. The court further stated that under Section 432(7) CrPC the appropriate Government can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments.
the appropriate Government in the ordinary course would be the State of Gujarat. But the case was transferred in exceptional circumstances by this Court for limited purpose for trial and disposal to the neighboring State i.e., the State of Maharashtra by an order dated 06.08.2004. ordinarily, the trial was to be concluded in the same State and in terms of Section 432(7) CrPC as the crime in the instant case was admittedly committed in the State of Gujarat, observed by the Apex Court.
he application for premature release has to be filed in the State of Maharashtra and not in the State of Gujarat, as prayed by the petitioner by judgment impugned dated 17.07.2009 As His petition filed in the High Court of Gujarat was dismissed taking note of Section 432(7) CrPC on the premise that since the trial has been concluded in the State of Maharashtra. Thereafter He had filed his petition for premature release under Sections 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stating that he had undergone more than 15 years 4 months of custody.
The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and the justice Vikram Nath observed and noted that under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments of the appropriate Government.
Adopt roster based reservation for preferential candidates as followed by JIPMER: Supreme Court directs all AIIMS institutes
The Supreme Court in the case Students Association AIIMS Bhopal And Or’s. v. AllMS and Or’s observed and directed all AIIMS Institutes to adopt roster-based reservation followed by Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry (JIPMER) as a plea was filled in the Court seeking direction to AIIMS to have a defined criteria for arriving at seat matrix for institutional preference candidates in INI-CET examination.
the order of the Apex Court in the case AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS And Or’s, would not be applicable if It emphasized that if the roster-based system is implemented the actual roster points for AIIMS would be different from JIPMER as the same would depend on the percentage of seats decided to be allocated to the preferential candidates but It stated that the reservation would be similar to the one adopted by JIPMER AIIMS New Delhi was willing to provide a roster-point based reservation for its institutional preference candidates, by way of an affidavit 20th January 2022 the Bench was apprised that pursuant to a meeting held on 28th June 2020 as prescribed the relevancy:
It shall not be too wide with the one for the general category candidate, that the margin of difference between the qualifying marks for the Institute’s candidate.
The one who has secured marks at the common entrance PG test less than the one secured by any other candidate belonging to reserved category enjoying constitutional protection such as SC, ST etc. cannot be the AIMS graduate the last student to qualify for admission.
appearing on behalf of AIIMS, Advocate, Mr. Dushyant Parashar, New Delhi was asked to get instructions from AIIMS, Bhubaneswar and Jodhpur so that the Court can pass appropriate orders on the next date of hearing. As that apart from AIIMS, Bhubaneswar and AIIMS, Jodhpur, all other AIIMS before the Apex Court has agreed to implement the roster-based reservation system followed by JIPMER Puducherry for their institutional preference candidates, the Court was informed at the last date of hearing.
the petition had been filed seeking direction to AIIMS to disclose how the seats for institutional preference candidates are to be allotted in the view of the same the petitioners claim that in the INI-CET examination conducted in July, 2021, only 4 seats (1.87%) in AIIMS, New Delhi were allotted to institutional preference candidates. Rivetingly, the petitioners note that no seats were allocated to any other AIIMS for admission of institutional preference candidates.
the Bench comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and the justice A.S. Bopanna observed and noted that to record in the order that the roaster system would be applicable from this year. Mr. Parashar informed it that since new software is to be put in place for counselling, it might cause some delay. The bench further stated that the court will order it to apply this year but in case of delay AIMS can come later.
‘The crime committed has to be considered in the remission or premature policy of the state’
The Supreme Court in the case Radheshyam Bhagwandas Shah, Lala Vakil vs State of Gujarat observed that where the crime was committed has to be considered in the remission which is applicable in the State and the premature release in terms of the policy
The Court noted while hearing the writ petition that in terms of the policy which is applicable in the State of Gujarat where the crime was committed and not the State where the trial stands transferred and concluded for exceptional reasons under the orders of this Court once the crime was committed in the State of Gujarat, after the trial been concluded and judgment of conviction came to be passed, all further proceedings have to be 6 considered including remission or premature release, as the case may be, in the instance case. under Section 432(7) CrPC, there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments, can be either the Central or the State Government of the appropriate government.
in terms of Section 432(7) CrPC, the trial was to be concluded in the same State and ordinarily in the State of Gujrat the crime in the instant case was admittedly committed. by an order 06.08.2004., the case was transferred in exceptional circumstances by this Court for limited purpose for trial and disposal to the neighbouring State i.e., the State of Maharashtra, observed by the bench of Apex Court.
As mentioned by the petitioner in the plea that by judgment impugned dated 17.07.2019., the application for premature release has to be filed in the State of Maharashtra and not in the State of Gujarat and His petition filed in the High Court of Gujarat was dismissed taking note of Section 432(7) CrPC on the premise that since the trial has been concluded in the State of Maharashtra. under Sections 433 and 433A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petition was filled by the petitioner for premature release further the petitioner stated that that he had undergone under the custody of more than 15 years 4 months.
Section 302, 376(2) (e) (g) and reading it with Section 149 IPC, Shah was found guilty for the offence, the offence committed by him in the State of Gujrat.
The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and the justice Vikram Nath observed that under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments of that appropriate government.
The bench comprising of Justice Ajay Rastogi and the justice Vikram Nath observed that under Section 432(7) CrPC can be either the Central or the State Government but there cannot be a concurrent jurisdiction of two State Governments of that appropriate government.
Seeking reduction of qualifying the percentile for admission in ayurveda course: A plea in Supreme Court
The Supreme Court in the Case Amit Kumar v UOI & Or’s observed in Ayurveda course in view of large number of vacancies and for seeking reduction of qualifying percentile for admission, an ayurveda aspirant who appeared in NEET 2021 has approached the Court.
the court had observed that lowering the minimum marks and reducing the percentile for admission to first year BDS Course would not amount to lowing the standards of Education and further the Court directed to lower the percentile mark by 10 percentiles for admission in first year of BDS Course for academic year 2020-2021, with regards to substantive the contentions made by the petitioner by referring the judgement passed in the case in Harshit Agarwal & Or’s v Union of India.
the percentile may also be reduced for Ayurveda programme enabling the Petitioner to take admissions then If percentile is being reduced/considered for reduction for BDS course was further stated by the petitioner in the plea, while referring to an order dated 04.29.2022. Thereafter the top Court had asked Centre to consider lowering the percentile for BDS Courses.
Seeking the Centre’s response in a plea by filing a counter affidavit, noted by the Top Court specifying the above-mentioned information:
after deducting the admission granted for MBBS Courses (BDS Courses), the total number of Candidates.
in All India Quota and State Quota, the totals number of vacant seats.
in government colleges on one hand & private/deemed colleges on the other hand, the number of seats which are remaining.
the petition was filed through AOR Neeraj Shekhar and for the petitioner Advocate Shivam Singh appeared.
Bank case rejected by Supreme Court against farmer
The Supreme Court in the case Bank of Maharashtra & Or’s v Mohanlal Patidar observed an order given by the High Courts of directing the bank the OTS proposal given by a farmer who had availed a loan from the bank, the court further pulled up the Bank of Maharashtra for challenging the order.
The Bank shall complete remaining formalities and provide all consequential benefits flowing therefrom to the petitioners, the court further stated that it is needless to emphasize The OTS proposal given by the petitioners in both the cases shall be accepted by the Bank and ‘sanction letters’ be issued forthwith, the court allowed the petitioner plea.
The petitioner not only promptly challenged the said order, it is noteworthy that petitioner never acceded to the unilateral decision dated 25th August 2021 and even otherwise the letter dated 25th August 2021 is held to be illegal by us, clause-7 of policy cannot take away the fruits of OTS benefits, within two months from the date of issuance of order dated 22th September 2021, the petitioner filled the instant petition and further the court directed we are unable to give stamp of approval to the impugned orders and action of the Bank, observed by the bench comprising of Justice Sujoy Paul and the justice Dwarka Dhish Bansal while setting aside the impugned orders of the bank.
In an order dated 03.09.2021 it was stated and it showed that the petitioner was required to pay minimum 10% of the OTS amount within stipulated time and that he had deposited Rs.35,00,000/- out of Rs.36,50,000/- within the stipulated time, it was argued before the court by the counsel.
As full and final settlement of the dues, he will be required to deposit Rs.50.50 lakhs as he was informed by the Asset Recovery Branch of the Bank.
Whole law comes into place when a matter of farmers come as the down payment were also accepted and it was further stated by the bench in an oral remark You don’t file cases against the ones who loot 1000s of crores.
The respondent had obtained a loan and intended to pay it in terms of a One Time Settlement which was quantified as Rs 3650000/-. in furtherance thereof the respondent had deposited Rs 35,00,000 with the bank, in the above-mentioned matter.
The bank had miserably failed to accept the same and on the contrary, decided to enhance the compromise amount to Rs.50.50 lakhs unilaterally which was contrary to the OTS scheme, contended by the counsel further the counsel stated that the bank had miserably failed to accept the same and on the contrary, decided to enhance the compromise amount to Rs.50.50 lakhs unilaterally which was contrary to the OTS scheme.
The bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and the justice Surya Kant observed and remarked while dismissing the plea assailing Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dated 02.21.2022 Such a litigation in Supreme Court will spoil the families of farmers financially, Go after bigger fish.
Opinion2 years ago
South Block’s mistakes will now be corrected by Army
Sports2 years ago
When a bodybuilder breaks Shoaib’s record
News2 years ago
PM Modi must take governance back from babus
Spiritually Speaking2 years ago
Spiritual beings having a human experience
News2 years ago
Chinese general ordered attack on Indian troops: US intel report
Legally Speaking2 years ago
Law relating to grant, rejection and cancellation of bail
Sports2 years ago
West Indies avoid follow-on, England increase lead to 219
Royally Speaking2 years ago
The young royal dedicated to the heritage of Jaipur