Ajay Kumar Nanda Vs. the Managing Direcotr, M.P.P.K.V.V.C.L.

Ajay Kumar Nanda vs The Managing Direcotr, M.P.P.K.V.V.C.L.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Oct 08, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1048638

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/1048638
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Oct 08, 2012
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ajay Kumar Nanda

Respondent

The Managing Direcotr, M.P.P.K.V.V.C.L.

Excerpt

.....is not correct. from the records it is seen that in w.p.no.12324/2012, this court on 8.8.2012 directed the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. in the order not passed vide annexure p/8, on 10.9.2012, it is seen that the grounds raised by the petitioner with regard to frequent transfer is considered and it is found that petitioner is not taking interest in working with the company, it has been found that when posted in the present place, he has not discharged his duties properly as a result revenue collection have not been properly made and, therefore, certain departmental proceedings 2 are also anticipated against him and a charge-sheet has also been issued to him on 8.2.2012, inquiry into which is pending. taking note of all these fact ors.his representation has been rejected. once the representation has been rejected and various reasons as are given hereinabove are indicated by the competent authority for rejecting the representation of an employee, this court will not sit over the aforesaid decision by exercising any further appellate jurisdiction. the competent authority having considered and rejected the representation and as the reasons given for rejecting the representation seems to be administratively sufficient for transferring the petitioner, i see no ground to interfere into the matter. accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge aks/-

Full Judgment

Ajay Kumar Nanda versus State of MP and otheRs.08.10.2012.

Shri P.K.Pandey for the petitioner.

Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice.

Petitioner is working as an Assistant Engineer in the office of Chief Engineer, MP Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited, Jabalpur.

Petitioner was transferred and, therefore, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition.

This Court found that on the grounds raised interference by the Writ Court is not permissible and, therefore, granted liberty to the petitioner to represent to the department.

The petitioner represented and not the representation having been rejected, petitioner is again before this Court challenging the rejection of his representation mainly on the ground that transfer of the petitioner amounts to frequent transfer and without considering the ground of frequent transfer, rejection of the representation is not correct.

From the records it is seen that in W.P.No.12324/2012, this Court on 8.8.2012 directed the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner.

In the order not passed vide Annexure P/8, on 10.9.2012, it is seen that the grounds raised by the petitioner with regard to frequent transfer is considered and it is found that petitioner is not taking interest in working with the Company, it has been found that when posted in the present place, he has not discharged his duties properly as a result revenue collection have not been properly made and, therefore, certain departmental proceedings 2 are also anticipated against him and a charge-sheet has also been issued to him on 8.2.2012, inquiry into which is pending.

Taking note of all these fact ORS.his representation has been rejected.

Once the representation has been rejected and various reasons as are given hereinabove are indicated by the competent authority for rejecting the representation of an employee, this Court will not sit over the aforesaid decision by exercising any further appellate jurisdiction.

The competent authority having considered and rejected the representation and as the reasons given for rejecting the representation seems to be administratively sufficient for transferring the petitioner, I see no ground to interfere into the matter.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Ajay Kumar Nanda vs The Managing Direcotr, M.P.P.K.V.V.C.L. Same Subject Land Acquisition