Update
itatonline
AT
Wrt ““The problems in apartment ownership Act…” focused on herein is not peculiar to Delhi(-ites), and to them alone; but are known to be largely obtaining in almost every other State, lately in Maharashtra being the pioneer in this respect as well. As such, it goes without saying that, the UUD minister/his office, also coterie, not to mention the specially empowered/appointed authorities, sooner than later realize, and cover within the framework of the reported reforms in a foolproof manner,all other states/territories as well; as after all those are undeniably part and parcel of the UNION of India and expect to receive, as of a fundamental right, the same treatment as DDA.
BL
REvisit
A Topic, in individual perspective, is seemingly worth a study in-depth , especially by anyone, devoutly caring and unreservedly minding, on so called 'first principles'. And, for such a purpose, need to look and find case law in cases, if any (requiring to be searched for), not being where the OP is not the State / Central government or any of its authorities. That is as distinguished from the case of the Querist herein.At the first blush, what the querist says, - 'This can not be PIL as its related to one particular school", it appears, has to be dwelt upon /prbed into in detail. In short, the fact that the proposed action is against "one particular school" cannot by itself be a vitiating factor, so as to take it far away from the purview of a PIL
More to add:
The grievance relates to 'education', right to which is a "Fundamental Right". Other strikingly crucial angle is, - educational institutions, even if by and large are regarded as run for a "charitable" purpose (so registered as such), and claim IT exemption, as is widely known those factually and actually function /operate on a highly commercialized basis. For that matter, if further information is sought for and procured, in all probability, not any particular school but most of them, but for possible rare exceptions, might be found to be 'birds of the same feather'.
As one sees it, perhaps,to any proceedings taken, the education ministry and its authorities (Centre and/or State), and the IT Department , if so eminently advised by a law expert, may have to be lined up as the necessary OPs.
Also keeping in the backdrop the guidance from the High Court and SC cases on the topic on hand; so also on the topic of the principle of interpretation named, "UPDATING CONSTRUCTION" (see a related discussion thereon in certain blogs (including other blogs in public domain as well) .
For instance, refer HERE:
http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.in/2014/06/pil-and-constitutioinal-x-statutory.html
itatonline
CIT vs. M/s Nayan Builders and Developers (Bombay High Court)
< Comm. PostedAT
Wrt ““The problems in apartment ownership Act…” focused on herein is not peculiar to Delhi(-ites), and to them alone; but are known to be largely obtaining in almost every other State, lately in Maharashtra being the pioneer in this respect as well. As such, it goes without saying that, the UUD minister/his office, also coterie, not to mention the specially empowered/appointed authorities, sooner than later realize, and cover within the framework of the reported reforms in a foolproof manner,all other states/territories as well; as after all those are undeniably part and parcel of the UNION of India and expect to receive, as of a fundamental right, the same treatment as DDA.
BL
REvisit
<Engineering the perfect print
Executive summary
A job well done? Say it now
How firms can prepare for a VUCA world
New insight into old problems
LCi Rti activist contesting case.
A Topic, in individual perspective, is seemingly worth a study in-depth , especially by anyone, devoutly caring and unreservedly minding, on so called 'first principles'. And, for such a purpose, need to look and find case law in cases, if any (requiring to be searched for), not being where the OP is not the State / Central government or any of its authorities. That is as distinguished from the case of the Querist herein.At the first blush, what the querist says, - 'This can not be PIL as its related to one particular school", it appears, has to be dwelt upon /prbed into in detail. In short, the fact that the proposed action is against "one particular school" cannot by itself be a vitiating factor, so as to take it far away from the purview of a PIL
More to add:
The grievance relates to 'education', right to which is a "Fundamental Right". Other strikingly crucial angle is, - educational institutions, even if by and large are regarded as run for a "charitable" purpose (so registered as such), and claim IT exemption, as is widely known those factually and actually function /operate on a highly commercialized basis. For that matter, if further information is sought for and procured, in all probability, not any particular school but most of them, but for possible rare exceptions, might be found to be 'birds of the same feather'.
As one sees it, perhaps,to any proceedings taken, the education ministry and its authorities (Centre and/or State), and the IT Department , if so eminently advised by a law expert, may have to be lined up as the necessary OPs.
Also keeping in the backdrop the guidance from the High Court and SC cases on the topic on hand; so also on the topic of the principle of interpretation named, "UPDATING CONSTRUCTION" (see a related discussion thereon in certain blogs (including other blogs in public domain as well) .
For instance, refer HERE:
http://vswaminathan-swamilook.blogspot.in/2014/06/pil-and-constitutioinal-x-statutory.html
< Allahabad
High Court
Ajai
Kumar Singh {P.I.L.} vs State Of U.P.Thru Secreatry ... on 28 June, 2010
@http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1461095/
Q
Often
they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions
of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and
in appropriate cases with exemplary costs."
It
is further contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment and Order
dated 18.01.2010 in Civil Appeal No. 1134-1135 of 2002, State of Uttaranchal
Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & ors reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1029 considered
the evolution of the Public Interest Litigation in India and expressed its
concern regarding the abuse of the process of Courts through PIL. Being concerned
with the abuse the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued directions to preserve the
purity and sanctity of PIL as under:-
"198.
In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, it has become
imperative to issue the following directions:
(1)
The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide PIL and effectively discourage
and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
(2)
Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with
the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to
properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the
PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts
who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months.
The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of
the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this
Court immediately thereafter.
(3)
The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before
entertaining a P.I.L.
(4)
The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the
contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.
(5)
The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is
involved before entertaining the petition.
(6)
The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public
interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.
(7)
The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at
redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure
that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing
the public interest litigation.
(8)
The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for
extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs
or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the
petitions filed for extraneous considerations.
UQ
No comments:
Post a Comment