Prembai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Prembai vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jan 08, 2013

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1053235

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/1053235
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Jan 08, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Prembai

Advocate Shri. Ajay Kumar Jain

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

w.a.no.369/2011 08.01.2013 shri ajay kumar jain, learned counsel for the appellant. shri sanjay dwivedi, learned govt. advocate for respondents. on 3.10.2012, the respondents which includes the secretary, additional commissioner bhopal, collector district raisen and project officer integrated child development project bareilly, were directed to file affidavit not below the rank of the additional secretary. we find that stipulated period is over and two months time have passed, but no affidavit is filed. accordingly, on payment of process fee within a week by registered post, issue notice to the secretary, woman and child development department to show cause why action for contempt be not initiated. notice be made returnable within four weeks. (s.a.bobde) (k.k.trivedi) chief justice judge. a.praj.

Full Judgment

W.A.No.369/2011 08.01.2013 Shri Ajay Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Govt.

Advocate for respondents.

On 3.10.2012, the respondents which includes the Secretary, Additional Commissioner Bhopal, Collector District Raisen and Project Officer Integrated Child Development Project Bareilly, were directed to file affidavit not below the rank of the Additional Secretary.

We find that stipulated period is over and two months time have passed, but no affidavit is filed.

Accordingly, on payment of Process Fee within a week by registered post, issue notice to the Secretary, Woman and Child Development Department to show cause why action for contempt be not initiated.

Notice be made returnable within four weeks.

(S.A.Bobde) (K.K.Trivedi) Chief Justice Judge.

A.Praj.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Prembai vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education