City considers partnership on courthouse

first_img Church leaders condemn mayor’s disparaging comments A photo of the south west side of the Ector County Courthouse on Wednesday from the intersection of 3rd Street and Grant Avenue. Pinterest Facebook Landgraf staffer resigns following investigation City officials want to explore partnering with the county to build a new courthouse that also includes space for city offices, as County Judge Ron Eckert seeks to tap municipal funds to help replace the blighted building.Eckert asked the Odessa City Council this week to consider agreeing to a deal that would see them clear land including the Odessa American building at 222. E. Fourth St. so the county could build the new courthouse at the site.The judge, who is the county’s top administrator, also asked the city officials to consider demolishing the existing courthouse once the new facility is built. In return, the city would get the site of the old courthouse, where plans have called for developing a park. Eckert also asked for help building parking.Eckert said the city’s participation could shave about $15 million off the original $95 million cost of building the new courthouse. Ector County voters nearly five years ago overwhelmingly rejected a bond proposal for that amount, and Eckert said the county officials had not determined a strategy for shoring up funds for the new facility.“I’m not running for anything, and if I present this to the voters there are different options where the voters always have a choice,” Eckert said.But if the county does not go through a bond election, that choice could be mounting a petition drive to overturn a county decision to take on debt.It was unclear how much of the judge’s $15 million estimate reflected money that would be gained through efficiencies such as land costs and how much would be money the city is asked to spend.Since buying the OA facility and nearby parking lot for about $1.6 million in 2016, city officials have discussed demolishing the property and either using it to draw private development or trading it to the county in exchange for the site of the existing courthouse. The city also owns many of the surrounding properties.City Council members on Tuesday said they were open to a partnership and agreed to meet with the Ector County Commissioners Court as soon as this month for a planning session. The city leaders said the new courthouse would also aid the city’s efforts to redevelop downtown.“If we can make this work and we can budget to where we can do that, I don’t see any flaws in it,” District 5 Councilman Filiberto Gonzales said.District 4 Councilman Mike Gardner said he wanted voters to sign off on any courthouse project but that a joint facility built by the city and county would be a good use of taxpayer money that the public could support.“It would frankly tick me off if I knew that that got shoved down my throat as a voter and I didn’t have a choice,” Gardner said. “Now do I think we need to do something? I do.”District 2 Councilman Dewey Bryant said a joint facility could lend to more favorable maintenance and debt servicing costs and other possible advantages. He urged city and county officials to estimate savings that could result once a facility is paid for.“A municipal building for both the city and the courthouse is much needed,” Bryant said, describing City Hall as aging and increasingly in need of repair. “We cannot overlook what we need. We are going to have to do something.”Last year, the Odessa City Council approved spending more than $500,000 on City Hall renovations and maintenance, including remodeled City Council chambers, structural fixes and a more than $100,000 emergency roof replacement prompted by leaks.“This is an excellent idea, and it shows progression in the city,” District 1 Councilman Malcolm Hamilton told Eckert on Tuesday about a possible shared facility. “Downtown needs a huge facelift, and as you said earlier, people think of the courthouse when they think of downtown.”District 3 Barbara Graff said city officials should also help convince the public to support building a new courthouse. County officials would be limited in their ability to campaign for a bond election if they seek one.“We need to publicly stand up and let the world know what’s going on, because you all I don’t think can really do that to the extent that someone outside could,” Graff said. “That’s a huge problem.” Pinterest Facebook By admin – March 2, 2018 Previous articleOC concludes Black History Month with panel discussionNext articleFive things you need to know today, March 2 admin RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHORcenter_img WhatsApp Twitter Texas Fried ChickenSlap Your Mama It’s So Delicious Southern Squash CasseroleSmoked Bacon Wrapped French Vidalia OnionPowered By 10 Sec Mama’s Deviled Eggs NextStay Landgraf prepares for state budget debate WhatsApp Twitter Local NewsGovernment City considers partnership on courthouse Home Local News Government City considers partnership on courthouselast_img read more

Infraction Of Rules Of Natural Justice By Itself Doesn’t Invalidate Proceedings Unless Prejudice Is Caused, Reiterates SC [Read Judgment]

first_imgTop StoriesInfraction Of Rules Of Natural Justice By Itself Doesn’t Invalidate Proceedings Unless Prejudice Is Caused, Reiterates SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK16 Oct 2020 6:50 AMShare This – xThe Supreme Court has observed that the breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused. The court said that the “prejudice” exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. In its judgment delivered on friday, the bench comprising Justices RF Nariman,…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court has observed that the breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused. The court said that the “prejudice” exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant.  In its judgment delivered on friday, the bench comprising Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph summarized the principles by referring to a some precedents. It observed:Natural justice is a flexible tool in the hands of the judiciary to reach out in fit cases to remedy injustice. The breach of the audi alteram partem rule cannot by itself, without more, lead to the conclusion that prejudice is thereby caused. Where procedural and/or substantive provisions of law embody the principles of natural justice, their infraction per se does not lead to invalidity of the orders passed. Here again, prejudice must be caused to the litigant, except in the case of a mandatory provision of law which is conceived not only in individual interest, but also in public interest.No prejudice is caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice where such person does not dispute the case against him or it. This can happen by reason of estoppel, acquiescence, waiver and by way of non-challenge or non-denial or admission of facts, in cases in which the Court finds on facts that no real prejudice can therefore be said to have been caused to the person complaining of the breach of natural justice. In cases where facts can be stated to be admitted or indisputable, and only one conclusion is possible, the Court does not pass futile orders of setting aside or remand when there is, in fact, no prejudice caused. This conclusion must be drawn by the Court on an appraisal of the facts of a case, and not by the authority who denies natural justice to a person. The “prejudice” exception must be more than a mere apprehension or even a reasonable suspicion of a litigant. It should exist as a matter of  fact, or be based upon a definite inference of likelihood of prejudice flowing from the non-observance of natural justice. The Court dismissed state’s appeal against an Allahabad High Court judgment which had set aside the cancellation of some tenders on the ground of breach of natural justice. Taking note of the facts of the matter, the bench said that the cancellation of the award of tender in favour of the applicant, the audi alteram partem rule were breached in its entirety.  The bench also observed that writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable at the instance of an aggrieved party to enforce a contractual obligation of the State or its instrumentality when the State acts in an arbitrary manner.”We, therefore, uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court on the ground that natural justice has indeed been breached in the facts of the present case, not being a case of admitted facts leading to the grant of a futile writ, and that prejudice has indeed been caused to Respondent No.1. In view of this finding, there is no need to examine the other contentions raised by the parties before us.”, the bench said while upholding the High CourtCase: STATE OF U.P vs. SUDHIR KUMAR SINGH [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3498 OF 2020]Coram: Justices RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM JosephCounsel: Sr. Adv Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv Rakesh Dwivedi,, SG Tushar Mehta  Click here to Read/Download JudgmentRead JudgmentNext Storylast_img read more