-It is against these orders that the appellant has filed the present group of appeals by special leave. That is why the Authority ordered that the respondents would be entitled for the period 19-5- 1953 to 30-9-1954 to overtime wages at double the ordinary rate for the Sundays on which they worked when they were not given a a holiday on one of the three days immediately preceding or after the said Sunday. The Licensee shall not be allowed to transfer the jetty separately as the same is directly connected to the project to which the Captive Jetty is allowed to be constructed.

The writ petitioners therein averred that the remarks, which were offered by the requisitioning body, i. the Housing Board, upon furnishing to it the Objections of the landowners, had not been communicated to the latter. The High Court reasoned that the furnishing of the remarks to the landowners was not just another formality or discretionary procedure to be waived of at the whims of the Authorities; and their non-communication had the effect of setting at naught the very purpose of the enquiry.

59 of the Factories Act. The appellant was accordingly directed to file a statement showing the overtime wages to which the several respondents were entitled and orders were passed on each one of the applications directing the appellant to pay the respective amounts to. each one of the respondents. On these two counts thus, the Writ Petition of A. In the batch matter concerning A. There is no evidence that this elderly lady was anything more than a foolishly trusting friend of this man who took advantage of her in every way.

PROVIDED that and it is agreed that the cost can be divided for the purpose of obtaining finance for the Jetty construction, it being, however, clearly understood that the water-front is a sovereign right of Government and the right of the Licensee is limited only for the purpose of mortgage or hypothecation to the extent of investment made by it and its right to concur in the event of transfer or take over of the entire project to which the Jetty is attached, subject, however, to the prior approval of the Board for transfer of license.

The question whether such a decision also complies with the requirements of the first of the two facets mentioned therein is the issue in this batch of matters. This contention of the writ petitioners that Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Rules has been infracted because of non-furnishing of the said remarks to the landowners found favour with the High Court. 141 The Authority then considered the respondent's argument that even if he was not a worker under the Factories Act he was neverthless entitled to claim the benefit of s.

The parties shall have to pay all the port charges at the rates specified in Schedule of Port Charges in force from time to time. No Rebate will be given in respect of any other charges to be levied under Indian Ports Act and under Gujarat Maritime Board Act. 70 of the Act entitled him to claim overtime wages under s. Such remarks along with the Objections of the landowners formed the basis for enquiry under Section 5A of the Act; ergo, knowledge of those remarks or contentions of the requisitioning body were crucial for the landowners to sustain their objections.

The Court, however, left the Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act intact, and it declined relief to those writ petitioners, who acquired ownership of the land under acquisition after the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act. Naidu along with some of the other parties was partly allowed by the High Court by granting the relief of quashing of the said Declaration vide Order dated 08. The Authority accepted this contention and held that, even if the respondent was not a worker under the Factories Act, s.

Since the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board, i. Another contributory factor buttressing the case of the writ petitioners was that the Declaration under Section 6 was not in conformity with the proviso of Section 6(1) of the Act, which prescribes that where land is being acquired for the benefits of a Local Authority, a part of the compensation payable for the acquisition shall have to be borne from the fund controlled or managed by the concerned Local Authority. The decision of the LICENSOR to conduct an auction for granting access to spectrum, obviously, complies with the second of the requirements specified by this Court in para 85 of the 2G Case judgment.

No explanation worth considering exists why this name was given, and the effort of the counsel for the appellant that he was probably on intimate terms with Laxmibai and chose to call her by her maiden name rather than her married name is belied by the fact that in every document in which the name has been mentioned by the appellant, he has adderssed her as Laxmibai Karve and not as Indumati Ponkshe. In other words, the adequacy of compensation which the Government of India seeks to derive by holding an auction for allowing access to spectrum is just and fair in the circumstances.

the beneficiary of the subject acquisition proceedings, was held by the High Court to be such a Local Authority and the Declaration under Section 6 specifically provided that the entire compensation was to be paid out of public revenue without any portion from the fund maintained by the Housing Board, it was plain that the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was not in accordance with the proviso of Section 6(1) of the Act. Naidu, the parties fought a strenuous battle which resulted in a lengthy discourse and an elaborate order of the High Court.

59 of the said Act by virtue of s.