
[Alarnatha Temple] Orissa HC directs separate arrangements for early darshan by old, physically disabled and women
The Court gave a slew of directions to ensure the smooth and peaceful darshan of the deity during Anasara.
The Court gave a slew of directions to ensure the smooth and peaceful darshan of the deity during Anasara.
A publicity interest litigation should be nipped in the bud so that valuable time of the Court is saved which can be effectively utilized in reducing huge pendency of cases.
The Supreme Court held that the rule framed by BCI requiring a candidate for enrolment as an Advocate to have completed his law course from a college recognized/ approved by BCI cannot be said to be invalid.
The temple is normally very crowded during the Anavasara Period and therefore, the court has directed the authorities concerned to ensure effective handling of the crowd.
The Court said that failure to possess an Aadhaar Card or a mobile phone or a proper ‘identity’ paper of a particular kind cannot become obstacles to availing the benefits under the Schemes as it can result in a child, or a family being denied the basic support in terms of food and supplements.
Provocative slogans were raised giving rise to communal disharmony leading to arson and bloodshed during the procession on the occasion of Hanuman Jayanti.
The Court said that even if the Departmental Proceeding was initiated prior to the superannuation of the delinquent employee, the same cannot be continued unless specifically provided under the Service Rules.
The Court held that while exercising the parens patriae jurisdiction for issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, the objections relating to territorial jurisdiction cannot have serious impact.
The Court noted that a review Departmental Proceedings Committee was held to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion and the decision was kept in sealed covers, pending disposal of Disciplinary Proceedings.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The Court said that there was scope for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk by virtue of the Odisha Ministerial Service (Method of Recruitment to the Posts of Junior Clerks in the District Offices) Amendment Rules, 2001.
The Court directed the State authorities to implement the recommendations made by the Shetty Commission within the period of three months.
The officers on duty cannot be subjected to undue harassment in the hands of unscrupulous litigants, to prevent malicious prosecution provisions such as Section 168 of the Electricity Act, 2003, are put in place.
The Court said that the Damocles sword has been hanging over the petitioners for the past six years, who await for the trial to commence.
Orissa High Court said that a criminal trial is not an IPL T20 match where every ‘substitute player’ can be an ‘impact player’, engaging a new State Defence Council without providing him police papers is gross illegality.
Supreme Court said that the Home Guards shall be entitled to the periodical rise which may be available to the Police personnel of the State and the DCA to be paid to the Home Guards be periodically increased taking into consideration the minimum of the pay to which the Police personnel of the State are entitled considering periodical increase from time to time.
Orissa High Court said that the legal possibilities of being forgotten On-line and Off-line, cries for widespread debate. It is also an undeniable fact that the implementation of the right to be forgotten is a thorny issue in terms of practicality and technological nuances.
Supreme Court said that even if development of Khadi and Cottage Industry is a Directive Principle of State Policy, it does not follow as a corollary that if the State establishes a Board or any organisation to carry out the obligations under such DPSP, it cannot make separate arrangements as regards the service conditions of the employees of such a Board or organisation.
Since the Odisha Lokayukta was not given any opportunity of being heard when the Division Bench of Orissa High Court set aside the inquiry order, the Supreme Court held the same as a manifest error in violation of the principles of natural justice.