Husne Mubarak
22 January 2011 at 01:00
Sir,
Art.334(a) says that:
"the reservation of seats for the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes in the House of the People and in the legislative Assemblies of the States....
........Shall cease to have effect on the expiration of a period of sixty years from the commencement of this constitution."
Sir,in this context, I have the following queries:
Q1: Has there been any recent amendment to this Article?
If not.....,
Q2: Sixty years from the commencement of this constitution means upto year 2010. Since we are in 2011 now, does it mean in the coming Legislative Assembly elections to be held in 2011 in West bengal, Assam etc., there will be no reservation for SC,ST candidates?
I shall always remain grateful to you for your guidance.
With regards
Husne Mubarak
k venkatesh shenoy
20 January 2011 at 14:30
Dear Sirs,
Please provide me with a model Trust deed for a temple which is already in existent. please provide me as much as possible
Anonymous
19 January 2011 at 21:50
Dear Experts,
Please refer Apex court decision at http://yedhulaprakash1.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/Licence-for-acquisition-and-possession-of-firearms-and-ammunition-1557.asp
As per my understanding apex court has given primacy to general act/Exim Policy (1997-2002) instead of a specific act i.e. Arms Act 1959.
Whereas apex court, in the case of Suresh Nanada Vs C.B.I 2008 AIR 1414 held that: The Act (Passport Act) is a special Act relating to a matter of passport, whereas Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. authorizes the Court to impound document or thing produced before it. Where there is a special Act dealing with specific subject, resort should be had to that Act instead of general Act providing for the matter connected with the specific Act. As the Passports Act is a special act, the rule that ‘general provision should yield to the specific provision’ is to be applied.
In view of Suresh Nanada Vs C.B.I 2008 AIR 1414, in my opinion Exim Policy should have yielded to specific act of Parliament. No policy can be above an Act of Parliament i.e. Arms Act 1959 in this case. Please give your opinions.
Dushyant Pandya
19 January 2011 at 21:45
Virgin lands, lying in isolating remote area in X state and same were allotted on lease basis by Government Authority for 30 year. Accordingly, lessees have developed the same by great efforts and investments.
Now, after almost 35 years, PIL was filed in the high court of some Y state stating that concern government authority had allotted at cheap rate and favored some parties. Petitioner till date neither joined lessees as respondent in petition nor invited them. In such circumstances, are lessees have any other way to protect their interest?
Should lessee approach any other authority under any law to protect their interest?
Please advice.
Mallik Karra
19 January 2011 at 20:28
>> say.. party "X" before the election say that they will not have any tie-up with party "Y" but later when they fall short of majority they tie up with "Y" what is the remedy available to public who voted for them based on their agenda.
We have anti-defection law to punish those politicians who cut across party line after winning on one party's ticket..
the interest of the political party is protected... but what about the general public who vote based on their agenda or promise and deviate later..
Shubhank Sanjeev
19 January 2011 at 18:03
Hi! I want to ask what is a reservation roster and what are its functions?
Anonymous
19 January 2011 at 15:21
Respected experts!!
Heard that Public Service Commission and others State Public Service Commission used some SCALING SYSTEM in competition examination conduct by them.
Could somebody explain me what is this scaling system is and how do they maintain this scaling system.
lissing perme
19 January 2011 at 14:46
"As reported by Nidhi Sharma in economictimes.com on 20 November 2010:
Apex court asks UPSC to divulge civil services selection under RTI - The Economic Times
Apex court asks UPSC to divulge civil services selection under RTI"
RESPECTED EXPERTS!!!
COULD ANYBODY GIVE IDEA HOW TO GET COPY OF ABOVE JUDGEMENT??? IF POSSIBLE PLIZ ATTACHED JUDGMENT COPY ITSELF!!
Anonymous
18 January 2011 at 15:23
Dear experts please answer my query,
A review petition filed in supreme court in-person by e-filing,
1.Will the petitioner-in-person will be allowed in chamber (where review heared) to make his point?
2. What is limitation for filing review in supreme court 30 days or 90 days?
Thanks in advance.
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
public interest litigation,information technology law
hello sir,
i have a moot competition and would like to ask a question regarding it.
i'll explain u my case:
there are two telecommunication firms,in which one is based in america(known as gateway,a hardware and software company) and other in india(known as airtel).america tied up with indian company so as to provide broadband services and opened a new firm by name of gateair.for a year they achieved great heights and earned good money due to there cheap and efficent services being provided in india(providing unlimited download schemes at 1700/month).so users of india left their usual isp's(internet service providers) and used donways isp.but soon after a year, problem started occurring in access to the websites by users of donway in india.hence due to this many users complained and on basis of this complaint telecom regulatory act sent sent a show cause notice to the ceo of donpower(who is running donway and also owing a franchise of apple,software and hardware company in india, but based in america)asking him to give reasons for problems occurring in accessing websites and downloading various other schemes.now there is a pil which is filed by an association called forum for better and open internet.but this pil was dismissed!
so kindly gve information regarding scope of publice interest litigation? and does the forign citizens have right to file pil in our country?