Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Thursday, October 31, 2024

All Hindus Living In Kashmir Valley Cannot Claim Benefits Meant For Kashmiri Pandits

Posted in: Civil Laws
Sat, Sep 18, 21, 18:17, 3 Years ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 5623
Rajeshwar Singh Vs UOI all Hindus residing in the Valley cannot be said to be a Kashmiri Pandit, thereby allowing them to await the benefits of the schemes meant exclusively for the Pandits

In a very significant development, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has as recently as on September 14, 2021 in Rajeshwar Singh & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors in WP(C) No.245/2021 CM No.883/2021 has held that all Hindus residing in the Valley cannot be said to be a Kashmiri Pandit, thereby allowing them to await the benefits of the schemes meant exclusively for the Pandits. This is definitely a big setback for those Hindus who cannot be said to be a Kashmiri Pandit as has been laid down by the Court in this case. We shall dwell on it later.

To start with, the ball is set rolling in para 2 of this learned judgment wherein it is put forth that:
The case projected by the petitioners is that in the year 2009, Government of India issued Prime Minister's Package for return and rehabilitation to Kashmiri migrants in Kashmir Valley. The PM's package aforesaid was executed and implemented by the then State Government by promulgating SRO 412 dated 30.12.2009. Subsequently on the basis of a survey conducted with respect to plight of Kashmiri Hindus who stayed within Valley and did not migrate in the wake of law and order situation created due to onslaught of militancy in early 1990s. It was on the basis of aforesaid survey conducted with respect to the living conditions of non-migrant Hindu community of Kashmir, SRO 412 of 2009 was amended by SRO 425 of 2017 and the people belonging to Hindu community who had stayed back in the Valley and did not migrate in 1990, were also extended the benefits of special recruitment drive which was a part of PM's package for Kashmiri migrants.

While elaborating on the matter, the Bench then brings out in para 3 that:
It is contended that on 1st December, 2020, the respondents issued an advertisement for filling up 1997 posts while carrying recruitment drive in accordance with SRO 412 of 2009 as amended vide SRO 425 of 2017. The advertisement was also open for the persons who had not migrated. They were, however, required to produce bona fide certificates to be issued by the concerned Deputy Commissioners to certify that such candidates had not migrated and were, accordingly, not registered with the Commissioner (Relief). The Deputy Commissioners were also to certify that the candidates, seeking benefit of special recruitment drive carried pursuant to Prime Minister's package, belonged to the community described as Kashmiri Pandits. The Deputy Commissioners, without any justification, chose not to grant such certificates in respect of a group of non-migrant Kashmiri Hindus, who according to them did not belong to the community of Kashmiri Pandits.

To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 4 that:
Having been denied the bonafide certificates by the Deputy Commissioners, the petitioners filed the instant petition and sought, by way of interim measure, their participation in the selection process without submitting the bonafide certificates from the Deputy Commissioners. This Court vide order dated 1st of March, 2021, allowed the petitioners to participate in the selection process for the posts advertised by the respondents vide Advertisement Notice bearing No.03 of 2020 dated 1st of December, 2020. It is submitted that the selection process has been almost concluded and selection list framed. The respondents have, however, withheld the selection of the petitioners on the ground that they do not meet the requirement of production of Kashmiri Pandit certificate issued by the competent authority.

While continuing in the same vein, the Bench then enunciates in para 5 that, The petitioners claim the benefit of SRO 425 of 2017 on the ground that said SRO is an outcome of census carried by the Government of India with regard to the living conditions of Hindus in the Valley who despite adversity had opted not to migrate from the valley during turmoil in the year 1990 and, therefore, the benefit of Prime Minister's Package cannot be restricted to only one community i.e. Kashmiri Pandits and ignoring other Hindu castes, communities and clans who have similarly suffered. All Hindus, it is submitted, who are residing in the Valley and have not migrated, constitute one class and their further classification on the basis of their identities is not permissible in law. There is an allegation made by the petitioners that even SRO 425 of 2017, as is understood by the respondents, is not being followed in letter and spirit, in that, the respondents have in many cases issued bonafide certificates of Kashmiri Pandits in favour of candidates who are similarly situated with the petitioners and carry the surname of Singh. This, in nutshell, is the factual matrix and the legal submissions made by the petitioners.

Truth be told, the Bench then points out in para 6 that:
Respondent No.6 has opposed the writ petition and has in its objections submitted that various posts were created by Government of India under Prime Minister's Special Package for Kashmiri migrants. These posts have been created on supernumerary basis across various departments and in terms of Rule 2 of the Jammu & Kashmir Migrants (Special Drive) Recruitment Rules, 2009, notified vide SRO 412 of 2009 dated 30.12.2009 read with amendments carried vide SRO 425 of 2017 dated 10.10.2017, following category of persons are entitled to apply against these posts:

 

  1. A person who has migrated from Kashmir Valley after 1st of November, 1989 and is registered as such with the Relief Commissioner
  2. A person who has migrated from Kashmir Valley after 1st of November, 1989, but has not been so registered with the Relief Commissioner on the ground of his being in service of Government in any moving officer or having left the Valley or any other part of the State in pursuit of occupation or vocation or otherwise and is possessed of immovable property at the place from where he has migrated but is unable to ordinarily reside there due to the disturbed conditions;
  3. An internally displaced person who has migrated within Valley from his original place of residence in Kashmir Valley for security reasons and is registered as such with the Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Migrants;
  4. A person who belongs to the Kashmiri Pandit Family and has not migrated from Kashmir Valley after 1st of November 1989 and is presently residing in the Kashmir Valley.


As it turned out, the Bench then brings out in para 7 that:
It is further submitted that category of persons mentioned at (i), (ii) and (iii) above, the Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner for Migrants is the designated authority for authentication of migrant status of the applicants. It is his duty to ensure that the applicant is a bonafide migrant while as for the category of persons mentioned at (iv) above, the Deputy Commissioner concerned is the designated authority for authentication of status of the applicant as also to issue the bonafide certificate to the candidate to the effect that he/she belongs to a Kashmiri Pandit family and has not migrated from the Valley and that he/she is presently residing in the concerned district. There is, however, no separate quota within the quota available for any migrant or non-migrant community in respect of these posts. It is, thus, submitted that in the absence of challenge to the Recruitment Rules of 2009, as amended vide SRO 425 of 2017, by the petitioners, the full effect to the rules is required to be given. The petitioners who are neither migrants falling in category (i), (ii) and (iii) nor do they belong to Kashmiri Pandit family are not eligible to participate in the selection process. The Deputy Commissioners have rightly declined to grant them bonafide certificates in this regard.

Of course, the Bench then brings out in para 8 that:
Another set of objections has been filed by respondent No.4 and 5 which are also on similar lines. It is, however, submitted by respondent No.4 and 5 that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, vide communication No.12013/6/2014-K-V dated 04.12.2015, sanctioned additional 3000 Government jobs for Kashmiri migrants. The communication aforesaid provided as under:

It has been decided that the Government of India would fund the additional 3000 State Government jobs, which were to be funded by the State Government in the Prime Minister's Package-2008 for the return and rehabilitation of the Kashmiri Migrants. The Kashmiri Pandit families who did not leave the Kashmir Valley during the terrorist violence, that began in the State in the early 1990, and who are still residing in the Kashmir Valley, will also be eligible for these jobs and preferably formula of one job per family is to be adopted. The Government of India will bear the cost towards salary and other expenditure in respect of these 3000 jobs/posts for 10 years or till these posts are absorbed against regular posts in the State Government.

Most significantly, the Bench then minces no words to put across in para 10 that:
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the considered view that the issue primarily raised by the petitioners is no longer res integra. Similar issue has been considered by this Court in OWP No.2048/2017 titled Kashmiri Sikh Community and others v. State of J&K and others decided vide judgment dated 14.02.2019. The parity sought by the Sikhs residing in the Valley who had not migrated in the wake of 1990 turmoil, with the non-migrant Kashmiri Pandits for the purposes of implementation of Prime Minister's Special Package of employment and rehabilitation has not been accepted by this Court and the classification made by SRO 425 of 2017 has been held to be valid, there is hardly any scope for the petitioners to raise the similar contention yet again. Paras 25 to 27 of the judgment dated14.02.2019 (supra) are quoted as under:

25. From careful reading of the Rules of 2009 and amendments carried thereto vide SRO impugned in this petition, it is abundantly clear that a class different form the migrants has been created for conferring the benefit of the Prime Minister's Package for return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants. The class identified under the impugned SRO is a community of Kashmiri Pandits, who did not migrate in the wake of turmoil in the Valley and stayed back despite adverse conditions perceivably prevailing for their community. This classification has been necessitated pursuant to the several representations received for and on behalf of this community, which was living in a very pitiable and pathetic condition in the Valley. The Government of India also took note of the fact that these handful families had not migrated due to reasons of their poverty, economic conditions, a sense of security instilled in them by their supporting neighbourhood, etcetera, etcetera.

They stayed back and braved the adverse conditions in the Valley, which seriously impacted growth of their families educationally and economically. Taking note of their plight and the persistent pitiable conditions, a policy decision was taken to confer the benefit of the Prime Minister's Package of return and rehabilitation on this community as well. As noted above, this was not a hollow exercise by the Government of India. Not only it collected the relevant empirical data but also appointed a Standing Parliamentary Committee to go into all these aspects and make their recommendations.

As is averred by the respondents in their affidavit that as per the records available with the Relief and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Migrant), Jammu, there are 15700 Hindu Relief families and 22062 Hindu Non-Relief families, consisting of 49859 souls and 82740 souls respectively. Besides there are 1336 Relief Sikh families and 353 Non-Relief Sikh families consisting of 5043 souls and 1502 souls respectively registered with the Relief Organization. In the light of the aforesaid data placed on record, the respondents have pleaded that the effect of migration in the wake of turmoil in the Valley was more on the Kashmiri Pandit community than other communities.

It is though conceded that handful of Sikh families too migrated from the Valley but majority decided to stay back and has been residing peacefully. It is on the basis of this empirical data and the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee constituted for the purpose that the Government appears to have taken a policy decision to extend some helping hand to this distressed Kashmiri Pandit community.

26. From the aforesaid discussion and in view of the stand taken by the respondents, it cannot be said that the Sikh Community is similarly placed with the Kashmiri Pandits. There appears to be intelligible differentia, which distinguishes Kashmiri Pandits, who have stayed back in the Valley and did not migrate when lakhs of their community members left their home and hearth in view of the then prevailing security scenario in the Valley. The classification clearly distinguishes Kashmiri Pandit community from Sikh Community living in the Valley, which has been left out of group.

This classification based on intelligible differentia has a definite nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Rules of 2009 as amended vide impugned SRO, and is meant to ameliorate the lot of Kashmiri Pandits who preferred to stay back and did not flee despite unsavoury security conditions in the Valley in the year 1989-90. The target killings of members of their community instilled sense of fear and insecurity in their minds, which made their living in the Valley possible only at the cost of their lives. This sense of insecurity was all pervasive. In the milieu, there were certain families who decided not to migrate either because they were poverty ridden or did not have resources to move out or that they were assured by the community in their neighbourhood not to be afraid of. Whatever be the reasons, they decided to stay back but suffered due to unsavoury and not too good conditions in the Valley for the community.

As per 137th report of the Standing Parliamentary Committee, their condition continued to worsen. They lacked behind in education and fared very bad on the economic front. Taking into account all these factors and the historical background responsible for en masse exodus of the community, the Central Government decided to provide some relief and succour to these families of Kashmiri Pandits. It is in this background that a policy decision was taken by the Government to treat these families of Kashmiri Pandits, staying in the Valley, at par with the migrants for the purposes of providing the employment package. This necessitated the amendment in the Rules of 2009, so as to include Kashmiri Pandits, staying in the Valley, also as beneficiary of the Prime Minister's Package for return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri Migrants, issued from time to time.

Viewed thus, it cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination or reasoning, that the classification made by the impugned SRO is not based on intelligible differentia or that differentia has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. If the object of the Rules of 2009 is return and rehabilitation of migrants, it would make no sense if the same does not provide for rehabilitation of those who have not fled from the Valley despite adverse conditions and have stayed back.

27. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the impugned SRO does not amount to class legislation but makes a valid classification which is permissible under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

What's more, the Bench then hastens to add in para 11 that:
Faced with the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that having regard to the background which preceded the delivery of Prime Minister's revised package of employment and rehabilitation, there is no escape from the conclusion that the benefit of employment is envisaged for those Hindus who are residing in the Valley and did not migrate during the year 1990. The term Kashmiri Pandits used in SRO 425 of 2017 is wide enough to include all non-migrant castes and communities of Hindus residing in the Valley and have similarly suffered as non-migrant Kashmiri Pandits, argues ld. Counsel for petitioners.

Without mincing any words, the Bench then states quite upfront in para 12 that, The argument raised is preposterous and cannot be accepted in the face of clear language of SRO 425 of 2017. It needs to be noticed that the petitioners have not challenged SRO 425 whereby the Rules of 2009 have been amended to provide the category of non-migrant Kashmiri Pandits for admitting them to the benefit of revised package of Prime Minister for employment and rehabilitation. In the absence of such challenge, the only question that remains to be determined in this petition is whether the petitioners, who are, admittedly, not Kashmiri Pandits but belong to different castes of Hindus, can be brought within the definition of Kashmiri Pandits.

Simply put, the Bench then brings out in para 13 that:
It is vehemently contended by Mr. Altaf Mehraj, learned counsel for the petitioners, that in the absence of any definition of Kashmiri Pandits given in the SRO, all Hindus, who are staying in Kashmir Valley and did not migrate like non-migrant Kashmiri Pandits, should be treated as Kashmiri Pandits.

Most remarkably, the Bench then minces no words to wax eloquently and sagaciously in para 14 that:
Despite great amount of persuasion by Mr. Altaf Mehraj, learned counsel for the petitioners, I regret my inability to accept such broad definition of Kashmiri Pandits. It is true that neither in SRO 425 nor in the Rules of 2009 as amended vide SRO 425 of 2017, the term Kashmiri Pandit family has been defined. What is, however, defined in Rule 2(ca) is the term Kashmiri Pandit which means a person belonging to Kashmiri Pandit Family who has not migrated from Kashmir Valley after 1st of November, 1989 and is presently residing in Kashmir Valley. In the absence of specific definition of the term Kashmiri Pandit family, the only way to find out the true meaning of the term is to apply the common parlance principle. There is no denying the fact that in common parlance, Kashmiri Pandit is a community of Kashmiri speaking Brahmins living in the Valley from generations and are distinctly identified by their dress, customs and traditions etc. etc. Kashmiri Pandits, is a separately identifiable community distinct from other Hindus residing in the Valley like Rajputs, Brahmins other than Kashmiri Pandits, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and many others. It is, thus, difficult to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners, who are mostly Kshatriyas, Rajputs, Scheduled Caste non- Kashmiri Brahmins etc. etc. should be treated as Kashmiri Pandits and admitted to the benefits of Prime Minister's revised package for return and rehabilitation of Kashmiri migrants given effect to by the Rules of 2009 read with SRO 425 of 2017.

Finally, the Bench then holds in para 15 that:
For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected application.

In conclusion, Justice Sanjeev Kumar has quite lucidly dwelt on why he has ruled that:
All Hindus living in Kashmir Valley cannot claim benefits meant for Kashmiri Pandits. We have already discussed them threadbare as stated hereinabove! One cannot have any bona fide reason to disagree with what has been held so conclusively!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Present space law framework in the country. Space has heightened the curiosity of mankind for centuries. Due to the advancement in technology, there is fierce competition amongst nations for the next space war.
The scope of Section 151 CPC has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
Co-operative Societies are governed by the Central Co-operative Societies Act 1912, where there is no State Act. In West Bengal they were governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act
Registration enables an NGO to be a transparent in its operations to the Government, Donors, to its members and to its urgent community.
The ingredients of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
Drafting of legal Agreements and Deeds in India
ST Land rules in India,West Bengal
The paper will discuss about the provisions related to liquidated damages. How the law has evolved. Difference between the provisions of England and India.
A privilege may not be a right, but, under the constitution of the country, I do not gather that any broad distinction is drawn between the rights and the privileges that were enjoyed and that were taken away.
It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority
Pukhraj v/s State of Uttarakhand warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar.
This article aims to define delay in civil suits. It finds the general as well as specific causes leading to pendency of civil suits and over-burdening of courts. This articles suggests some solutions which are pragmatic as well as effective to reduce the burden of the courts and speed up the civil judicial process.
This article deals with importance, needs, highlights and provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2016, which is passed by the lok sabha on 19th December 2018 .
Cross Examination In Case of Injunction Suits, Injunctions are governed by Sections 37, 38, 39 to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act.
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v Gujarat inability of a person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction..
Dr.Ashok Khemka V/s Haryana upheld the integrity of eminent IAS officer because of his upright and impeccable credentials has emerged as an eyesore for politicians of all hues but also very rightly expunged Haryana Chief Minister ML Khattar adverse remarks in his Personal Appraisal Report
State of Rajasthan and others v. Mukesh Sharma has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson the Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities.
The Commissioner of Police v/s Devender Anand held that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law.
Rajasthan Vs Shiv Dayal High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable.
Complete Guide to Pleadings in India, get your Written statement and Plaint Drafted by highly qualified lawyers at reasonable rate.
Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs UP imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality.
Rajasthan v/s Shri Ramesh Chandra Mundra that institutional independence, financial autonomy is integral to independence of judiciary. directing the Rajasthan Government to reconsider the two decade old proposal of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to upgrade 16 posts of its Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries
The Indian Contract act, 1872 necessities significant consideration in a few of its areas. One such area of the Indian Contract act of 1872 is where if any person finds a lost good belonging to others and takes them into his custody acts as the bailee to the owner of the good.
Government has notified 63 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 including the ones dealing with enhanced penalties
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situated outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales rejecting rightly Pakistan's frivolous claims and ruling explicitly that the VII Nizam of Hyderabad's descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from Londons National Westminster Bank.
Power of Attorney and the Specific Relief Act, 1963
air pollution in Delhi and even adjoining regions like several districts of West UP are crossing all limits and this year even in districts adjoining Delhi like Meerut where air pollution was never felt so much as is now being felt.
Dr Syed Afzal (Dead) v/sRubina Syed Faizuddin that the Civil Courts while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side, interim mandatory injunctions can be granted after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.
students of Banaras Hindu University's (BHU's) Sanskrit Vedvigyan Sankay (SVDVS) went on strike demanding the cancellation of the appointment of Assistant Professor Feroze Khan and transfer him to another faculty.
Odisha Development Corporation Ltd Vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. the time tested maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which in simple and straight language means that, No party should suffer due to the act of Court.
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd v/s. State of U.P that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing. In other words, the Apex Court reiterated the supreme importance of the legal maxim and latin phrase titled Audi alteram partem
Ram Murti Yadav v/s State of Uttar Pradesh the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict, that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function.
Judicial Officers Being Made Scapegoats And Penalized By Inconvenient Transfers And Otherwise: SC
Desh Raj v/s Balkishan that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. In non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits.
M/S Granules India Ltd. Vs UOI State, as a litigant, cannot behave as a private litigant, and it has solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice.
To exercise one's own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others.
Today, you have numerous traffic laws as well as cases of traffic violations. People know about safe driving yet they end up defying the safety guidelines. It could be anything like driving while talking on the phone, hit and run incidents, or driving under the influence of alcohol.
The legal processes are uncertain. Also, there are times when justice gets denied, and the legal outcomes get delayed. Hence, nobody wants to see themselves or their loved one end up in jail.
Arun Kumar Gupta v/s Jharkhand that judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. The law pertaining to the vital subject of compulsory retirement of judicial officers have thus been summed up in this noteworthy judgment.
Online Contracts or Digital Agreements are contracts created and signed over the internet. Also known as e-contracts or electronic contracts, these contracts are a more convenient and faster way of creating and signing contracts for individuals, institutions and corporate.
Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers has asked Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending stranded migrant workers to their native places.
Gerald Lynn Bostock v/s Clayton County, Georgia that employees cannot be fired from the jobs merely because of their transgender and homosexual identity.
This article compares two cases with similar facts, yet different outcomes and examines the reasons for the same. It revolves around consideration and validation of contracts.
Odisha Vikas Parishad vs Union Of India while modifying the absolute stay on conducting the Jagannath Rath Yatra at Puri has allowed it observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
Soni Beniwal v/s Uttarakhand even if there is a bar on certain matters to be taken as PIL, there is always discretion available with the Court to do so in exercise of its inherent powers.
Indian Contract Act was commenced in the year 1872 and since then, several deductions and additions have happened to the same. The following piece of work discusses about the concept of offer under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Top