Kishore Samrite Vs. Union of India

Kishore Samrite vs Union of India

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Nov 23, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1039632

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1039632
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Nov 23, 2012
Subject: Labour and Industrial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Labour and Industrial

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kishore Samrite

Advocate Shri. Balaji Akillawar

Respondent

Union of India

Excerpt

.....to direct the central bureau of investigation (cbi) to investigate the matter for sstrict compliance of the act, 1986 in the state of mp. (c) this hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned communication being in violation of the act, 1986 contained in annexure p/3. (d) any other relief which this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper be also awarded to the petitioner including cost of the petition. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.7 has constructed a mall without seeking environmental clearance from respondent no.3, so aforesaid directions may be issued. from perusal of the record it appears that before filing of this petition, no representation was filed for ventilation of the grievances. the petitioner is seeking mandamus in the matter, but without filing any representation to respondent no.3, to perform its legal duties, this petition has been filed, while it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to firs.draw attention of the authority to discharge its duties and in case of default, the petitioner can approach this court for issuing mandamus for discharging such duties. it appears that the petition is premature. petitioner may approach to the respondent no.3, for ventilation of the grievances. in view of the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of as premature. no order as to costs. (krishn kumar lahoti) (smt.vimla jain) judge judge manju writ petition no.12984 o”23. 11/2012 shri balaji akillawar, counsel for the petitioner. shri k.k.singh, advocate for respondents no.1 & 2. shri jaideep singh, advocate for the respondent no.3 -state. learned counsel for the state has prays three weeks' time to file reply in the matter. the prayer made by respondent-state is opposed by the petitioner, but in the interest of justice, by way of last opportunity, prayer is allowed. be listed for hearing on 18/12/2012. (krishn kumar lahoti) (smt.vimla jain) judge judge manju writ appeal no.202 o”04. 09/2012 shri.....

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No.9839 o”

23. 11/2012 The petitioner has sought following relief:- (A).This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records like Form I submitted by the respondent No.7 before respondent No.2 and whole proceedings conducted before the respondent no.2 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

(B) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the matter for sstrict compliance of the Act, 1986 in the State of MP.

(C) This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned communication being in violation of the Act, 1986 contained in Annexure P/3.

(D) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be also awarded to the petitioner including cost of the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no.7 has constructed a Mall without seeking environmental clearance from respondent no.3, so aforesaid directions may be issued.

From perusal of the record it appears that before filing of this petition, no representation was filed for ventilation of the grievances.

The petitioner is seeking mandamus in the matter, but without filing any representation to respondent no.3, to perform its legal duties, this petition has been filed, while it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to fiRs.draw attention of the authority to discharge its duties and in case of default, the petitioner can approach this Court for issuing mandamus for discharging such duties.

It appears that the petition is premature.

Petitioner may approach to the respondent no.3, for ventilation of the grievances.

In view of the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of as premature.

No order as to costs.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju Writ Petition No.12984 o”

23. 11/2012 Shri Balaji Akillawar, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri K.K.Singh, Advocate for respondents No.1 & 2.

Shri Jaideep Singh, Advocate for the respondent no.3 -State.

Learned counsel for the State has prays three weeks' time to file reply in the matter.

The prayer made by respondent-State is opposed by the petitioner, but in the interest of justice, by way of last opportunity, prayer is allowed.

Be listed for hearing on 18/12/2012.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju Writ Appeal No.202 o”

04. 09/2012 Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Advocate, Shri Ashok Agrawal, Shri Anuj Agrawal, and Kumari Chhoti Bai, Advocates for the appellant in various matteRs.Shri Vijay Pandey, Government Advocate, for the State.

Shri Mukesh Agrawal, Advocate for the Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited.

At the request of the appellant hearing of the appeal is adjourned for 20th September, 2012.

Be listed for hearing along with analogous matter on the aforesaid date.

(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE manju

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Kishore Samrite vs Union of India Same Subject Labour and Industrial