Latest Cases

K.Santhosh. Vs. the Chief Conservator of Forests.

Court : Kerala

Reported in : ILR2010(4)Ker146

.....filed. 2. although the learned senior counsel for the petitioners canvassed that there was no deliberate violation of the terms of the noc, still fact remains that nocs granted as per exts.p3 and p3 (a) authorised processing of only rubber wood. the specific allegation which has been found against the petitioners, and which in fact is not seriously disputed also is that, other species of timber also were processed. if that be so, as at present, the petitioners cannot impugn exts.p7 and p7 (a). 3. however, fact remains that realising the mistake, petitioners have made exts.p6 and p6 (a) seeking permission for processing of the species of soft wood also. these applications are pending. therefore, necessarily, these applications will have to be considered by the 1st respondent. 4. therefore, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider exts.p6 and p6 (a) as expeditiously as possible. it is made clear that if the orders on exts.p6 and p6 (a) are allowing these applications, it will be open to the petitioners to move the authorities seeking reinstatement of exts.p3 and p3 (a) nocs as well. 5. writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. 6. it is made.....

Chandra Bahadur Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

.....is under suspension (as was the respondent), either of withholding permission to retire or retaining of the incumbent in service. it is an admitted fact that no such order had been passed in the present case. so, despite the right given to the appropriate/competent authority in this regard, the same is of no avail in the present case as the right had not come to be exercised. we do not know the reason(s) thereof. may be, for some reason the concerned authority thought that it would be better to see off the respondent by allowing him to retire. 5. the second aspect of the matter is that it has been held by a three judges bench of this court in dinesh chandra sangma v. state of assam, 1977 (4) scc 441, which has dealt with a pari materia provision finding place in rule 56(c) of the fundamental rules, that where the government servant seeks premature retirement the same does not require any acceptance and comes into effect on the completion of the notice period. this decision was followed by another three judges bench in b.j. shelat v. state of gujrat, 1978 (2) scc 202." 7. while considering the provisions of fr 56 (c), a division bench of this court in surendra narain singh v......

Rishabh Dwivedi Vs. Registrar Central Admission Board State Entrance E ...

Court : Allahabad

.....as nri and has been given the benefit of nri quota, then he has to pay the applicable requisite fees till he completes the study. 2. the relevant facts may be set out to decide the controversy in the present case. the state government issued a notification dated 12th august, 2004 by which five percent seats in government engineering colleges and autonomous engineering colleges of the state of u.p. were reserved for non resident indian (hereinafter referred to as the ''nri') on payment of fee of u.s. $ 5,000/- per annum. an advertisement was issued by the u.p. technical university, lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'university') inviting applications for admission under nri quota in b. tech. and b. arch. courses. pursuant to said advertisement, the appellant applied for admission on 11.06.2008 and specifically mentioned in the application form that he is nri and lives in u.a.e. (dubai). the respondent - university, by its letter dated 03.07.2008, intimated to the institute, namely, harcourt butler technological institute, kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'institution'), that the appellant had been admitted in b. tech 1st year in the institution under nri quota and.....

Sanjay Kumar Sharma Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Other ...

Court : Allahabad

.....which has already been answered by us in the aforesaid decision. 4. sri b.n. tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that certain facts and certain arguments had not been either advanced or considered by this court while deciding the case of dileep kumar pandey (supra) and, therefore, on the strength of the submissions raised, sri tiwari contends that if this court is persuaded to reverse the view earlier taken, the matter may require to be referred to a larger bench for resolving the dispute with regard to the maintainability of writ petition in such matters. 5. sri tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant has extensively cited several decisions and has invited the attention of the court to various paragraphs of the writ petition as also the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner before the learned single judge to contend that, the deep and pervasive control of the authorities of the air force clearly establishes, that the entire administrative, functional and financial control over the institution is of the air force department and hence the writ petition would be maintainable. 6. sri tiwari further submitted that the service conditions of the appellant.....

indra Pal and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Court : Allahabad

.....328, 304 ipc, p.s. kotwali, district bareilly, whereby application of the accused - revisionists under section 311 cr.p.c. was rejected. 4. the facts of the case are that p.w.1 smt. amlawati, p.w.3 neetu and p.w.5 dr. harish chandra were examined as prosecution witnesses on 2.2.2007, 26.7.2007 and 24.4.2010 respectively, but they could not be cross-examined on behalf of the defence. 5. the application under section 311 cr.p.c. was moved for recalling p.w.1, p.w.3 & p.w.5 for cross-examination on the ground that these witnesses could not be cross-examined by the then defence counsel. the accused persons are illiterate and poor and have no knowledge of law. on 28.7.2010, they appointed sri m.a. ansari, advocate as their new counsel and thereafter it came to light that these three witnesses could not be cross-examined. 6. the aforesaid application under section 311 cr.p.c. was rejected by the trial court on the ground that earlier, opportunity for cross-examination was given to the accused persons, which was not availed of by them and there was no ground to summon these witnesses for cross-examination. hence, this revision. 7. learned a.g.a. supported the impugned order. 8......

Bhadra NaraIn Pathak and anr Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

.....for a long period. the entire records appear to have been forged to continue to claim grant and salary of the teachers. the petitioners have not submitted any representation to the principal secretary, government of up challenging the inspection report. they have filed a writ petition straightaway alleging violations of principles of natural justice. 9. we have carefully perused the material annexed to the writ petition and do not find any document, which may clear the doubt over the validity of the inspection report. in the facts and circumstances we do not propose to give any direction to the state to conclude the proceedings. a person who played fraud with the system, has no right to approach the court for relief under article 226 of the constitution of india. 10. the special appeal is dismissed.

State of U.P. and ors. Vs. Smt. Munni Devi.

Court : Allahabad

.....decision, which has to be decided by the state government and its right to create post and recruit people emanates from the statute or statutory rules and/or rules framed under the proviso to article 309 of the constitution of india. it has also been submitted on behalf of the state that reliance placed by the learned judge on the judgment in santosh kumar mishra (supra) was misplaced. 5. at the hearing of this appeal, though notice was given to the learned counsel for the respondent, but none appeared on her behalf. 6. in the first instance, we may point out that a full bench of this court in civil misc. writ petition no. 15505 of 2005, pawan kumar yadav v. state of u.p. & ors., decided on 22.09.2010, has overruled the judgment, amongst others, in santosh kumar mishra (supra). once that be the case, the impugned judgment of the learned single judge cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. we may quote paragraph 26 of the said judgment, which reads as under:- "26. on the aforesaid discussion, and in view of the law laid down in general manager, uttaranchal jal sansthan v. laxmi devi (supra), we answer the questions posed as follows:- "1. a.....

Jagat Pal. Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Court : Allahabad

.....wrongly made. 7. learned a.g.a. has no objection if the matter is remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision in the light of section 7a of the act and rule 12 (3) of the juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules 2007'). 8. section 7 a of the act provides as under : "7a. procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court.-- (1) whenever a claim of juvenility is raised before any court or a court is of the opinion that an accused person was a juvenile on the date of commission of the offence, the court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) so as to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding whether the person is a juvenile or a child or not, stating his age as nearly as may be: provided that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in this act and the rules made thereunder, even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of this act......

Subhash Yadav and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

.....the relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the fir registered at case crime no. 251 of 2010, under sections 147,148,332,353,336 ipc & section 7 criminal law amendment act, police station sadar bazar, district mathura. 3. the full bench of this court in ajit singh @ muraha v. state of u.p. and others (2006 (56) acc 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier full bench in satya pal v. state of u.p. and others (2000 cr.l.j. 569) after considering the various decisions including state of haryana v. bhajan lal and others (air 1992 sc 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the f.i.r. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the police to investigate a case. 4. from the perusal of the fir, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. hence no ground exists for quashing of the fir or staying the arrest of the petitioners. 5. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. however, it is provided that if the petitioners appear before the court concerned within three weeks and apply for bail.....

K. Balan Vs. Union of India Represented by the General Manager Souther ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

.....order of this tribunal dated 30.3.2009 in oa 85/08 - n.dasan vs. union of india and others wherein it has been held as under :- 8. in the aforesaid facts and legal position it is quite clear that the respondents ought to have considered the applicant to any group 'd' posts for which 'b 1' medical classification is not necessary. it is not the case of the respondents that they do not have any posts for which medical classification 'c 1' is only necessary. the applicant being a casual labourer admittedly having 1071 = days of service at his credit cannot be just ignored in the matter of regularisation. it is seen that the respondents have not considered his various requests for subjecting him for fresh medical examination and to appoint him against a post for which lower medical classification is sufficient. i, therefore, direct that the respondents shall subject the applicant for re- medical examination within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and to re-assess his medical fitness and he shall be offered group 'd' post for which the lower medical classification in which he has been placed is sufficient. if he is so appointed, he shall also be.....