High Courts Weekly Roundup

Week Commencing From September 7, 2020 To September 13, 2020 Allahabad High Court 1. Allahabad HC Stays Demolition Of Azam Khans Resort Allegedly Built On Government Land [Dr. Tazeen Fatima v. State of UP & Ors.] In a plea filed by Ms. Tanzeen Fatima, wife of MP Azam Khan, the Allahabad HC stayed the orders of demolition of their 'Humsafar Resort', in UP district Rampur, allegedly built upon government land The division bench of Justices Shashi Kant Gupta and Piyush Aggarwal directed Ms. Fatima to avail her alternate remedy under section 27(2) of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act. The court ordered that 'For a period of six weeks or till the disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner.' 2. Stamp Duty Cannot Be Levied On Contact Security': Allahabad High Court Raps State Government For Ignoring Previous Judgements [M/S Yogendra Kumar v. State of U.P & Ors.]. The Bench headed by Justice Jayendra Thaker quashed the order demanding stamp duty on contract security. It observed, "The Authorities empowered shall in no circumstance demand stamp duty beyond the scope of Article 57 (b) Schedule 1B of Stamp Act," Article 57 (b) Schedule 1 B stipulates that stamp duty may be levied on the Security Bond and Mortgage Deed, inter alia executed by a surety to secure the due performance of a contract or the due discharge of a liability." 3. [Right Against Exploitation] Allahabad HC Asks UP Govt Why RTE Instructors Are Paid Less The Peon, Etc. [Prabhu Shanker & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.] The bench headed by Justice Pankaj Bhatia asked the state Government to file a reply affidavit in a plea alleging that the teachers recruited under Right to education are paid an honorarium amount, lesser than peons. The took note of the submission that such actions amount to 'exploitation' and thus sought the authorities' response. In the interim, it ordered that the teachers be paid honorarium of Rs. 17,000/- as per the Central Government's order. 4. Allahabad HC Asks CBI Why Only One Advocate Is Assigned To Represent It Before The High Court [Jawahar Lal @ Jawahar Lal Jalaj v. UOI] Taking serious view of non-availability of any counsel to assist the Court on behalf of the CBI, the Allahabad High Court directed the Deputy Legal Advisor, CBI, Lucknow Zone to file a personal affidavit, explaining why only one Advocate has been assigned to argue all the CBI cases in the High Court. "It is very strange that CBI is keeping only one Advocate to argue the matter and nobody is available to assist the learned A.S.G. The Court has taken very serious view of the matter as nobody is available to assist the court on behalf of the CBI in absence of learned A.S.G," the Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed. 5. Allahabad HC Seeks Response From Election Commission In Plea For Online Nomination Of Candidates For Panchayat Election [Gopal Krishna Pandey v. State of UP & Anr.] A Division Bench comprised of Justices SK Gupta and Shamim Ahmed issued notices on a PIL seeking online nomination of candidates contesting in the upcoming Panchayat Election in the state to avoid crowding of supporters and procession, amid the pandemic. The Court has asked the State Government as well as the Election Commission to file their counter affidavits in the matter within two weeks. Andhra Pradesh High Court 1. Unreasonable To Stop Payment Of Meagre Amount Towards Social Security Pension When Crores Of Public Money Being Spent For Different Activities: AP HC The Andhra Pradesh High Court while hearing two Writ Petitions held that stopping payment of social security pension to the petitioners without conducting any enquiry or without issuing any notice is "illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and against the object of social security pension scheme, against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India". Most importantly, the single bench of Justice Battu Devanand observed, "While spending crores of rupees of public money for all the programmes, it is unreasonable to stop payment of meagre amount being paid towards social security pension in favour of the petitioners." Bombay High Court 1. Bombay High Court Prevents BPCL Employees From Going On Strike Under Industrial Dispute Act As Conciliation Proceedings Are Pending [Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. Petroleum Workmen Union & Ors.] The division bench of Justice KK Tated and Justice NR Borkar granted interim relief to Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and directed the Respondents (Petroleum Workmen's Union & Ors.) and their members not to go on strike or indulge in any kind of abstention from work after observing that Section 22 of the Industrial Dispute Act prohibits employees from going on strike when conciliation proceedings are pending. The bench observed,...

High Courts Weekly Roundup

Akshita Saxena

Tags