The PIL also mentions that the economic ramifications of duplication of civil work and damage to roadways on account of re-digging and trenching is not considered which account for substantial loss of public money.
Sheetal Tiwari, panel lawyer of the state, contended that petitioner has already been relieved and no other person has been appointed substantively on her post.
The petitioners have submitted that the cause of action arose against the mala fide actions and irregularities committed by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, UOI and the National Highways Authority of India.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice on a PIL seeking directions to the Centre to have a mechanism to track total GST paid on the OIDAR (Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval Services) services used by Non-Taxable Online Indian recipients under reverse charge basis.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Central Government on a PIL pertaining to the cancellation of 3 crore ration cards and deaths by starvation as a consequence. The court observed that the absence of an Aadhaar card will not result in the cancellation of ration card.
The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice NV Ramana was hearing the matter through video conferencing. While hearing, the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the role of Amicus in the current matter has ended.
Justice Avneesh Jhingan passed the order, after perusing four medical reports submitted by the state of Haryana, pursuant to the Court’s earlier orders in the matter.
Special CBI Judge Ajay Gulati passed orders finding that the custodial interrogation of the brother of Trinamool Congress leader Vinay Mishra is necessary to unearth the conspiracy.
The Supreme Court has launched a web-based e-Copying software to facilitate doorstep and contactless delivery of certified copies of Supreme Court judgments/proceedings. Therefore, it will not be necessary for stakeholders to physically come to the counter of the Registry to apply and obtain such copies.
The Court, while perusing the order dated 13.11.2018 passed by Rent Controller, held that though the Rent Controller dismissed the application, he directed the Nazir to keep the amount in fixed deposit.