Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC161
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. In these petitions since pure questions of law are involved and as desired by counsel for the parties, they are disposed of finally by common judgment.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel Sri A.K. Varma and also perused the record.3. By means of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.9.1995 and 15.7.1995.4. It appears that the proceedings under Section 198 of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short the Act) were initiated against the petitioners, in respect of the land in dispute and order of ejectment dated 11.9.1995 was passed by the Chief Revenue Officer behind the back of the petitioners and without affording them an opportunity of hearing, holding that their pattas were farzi and it was not necessary to provide them an opportunity of hearing. The petitioners aggrieved by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC315; 1998CriLJ1587
G.P. Mathur and K.D. Shahi, JJ.1. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 307/34 and 302/34. I.P.C. and was sentenced to three years' R. I. and imprisonment for life respectively by the judgment and order dated 23.12.74 of Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in S. T. No. 67 of 1972. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court in 1979 and thereafter by the Supreme Court. The petitioner claims that he moved an application on 31.8.84 before the State Government for premature release under U. P. Prisoners Release on Probation Act, 1938 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and by that time he had undergone a sentence of five years' three months and 19 days inclusive of remission. As the State Government did not pass any order on the application, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1207/84 before the Supreme Court whichwas disposed of on 23.5.85 with a direction to the State Government to consider and dispose of the petitioner's application within five months from the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1998)1UPLBEC461
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner was appointed in Group-D post before November 5, 1985. Relying on Rule 56 (a) of the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules, hereinafter called as the Rules, the petitioner, a collection amin, claims his retirement of age is 60 years whereas he is being sought to be retired at the age of 58 years.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri V.B.L. Srivastava points out from the proviso that since the petitioner was recruited in Group-D post before November 5, 1985, therefore, he should retire at the retirement age of 60 years.3. Learned Standing Counsel opposes the said prayer and submits that since the petitioner is a Collection Amin and he is not holding the Group-D post, he is not entitled to get the benefit of said proviso.4. I have heard Shri V.B.L. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.Rule 56 (a) of the said Rules provides as follows :-'56.(a) Except as otherwise provided in other clauses of this rule, every Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC211
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorori, quashing the order dated 27.1.1996 whereby the building No. 25, Hazratganj, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Lucknow (for short the building in question) was allotted to respondent No. 3 and order dated 14.2.95, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid allotment order was dismissed by the District Judge, Lucknow acting as revisional authority under U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short the Act).2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the building in question, which was in occupation of Hercules Insurance Company, which later merged into United Fire and General Insurance Company vacated the said building. Sri R. N. Kapoor, the landlord who has been arrayed as respondent No. 4 made an application for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC361; (1998)2UPLBEC1462
R. K. Mahajan, J.1. Case called out in the revised list. None appears for the petitioners. Shri K. P. Agarwal for the respondents.2. Tilts is a writ petition in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Notification No. 981/XXXVI-I 1075 (St)-85, dated 15.3.1991 (Annexure No. 7). The petitioners have further prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be also Issued commanding the respondents No. J to 4 not to take any proceedings in pursuance of the Impugned notification.3. The writ petition relates to quashing of notification (Annexure No. 7) regarding fixing of minimum rate of wages in respect of workmen employed in hotel and restaurants in Uttar Pradesh. Vide notification dated 15,3.1991, the rates of pay of Dhaba Restaurant workers were increased considering the rise in prices by issuing notification under Section 3 (b) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (U. P. Act No. 28 of 1947). This notification has been challenged on the grounds that notification is arbitrary and Invalid. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC522; (1998)1UPLBEC638
J. C. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner, who was serving as Constable in U. P. Police Force, has filed this writ petition challenging the validity of the order of dismissal dated 6.1.92 (Annexure 6) passed by respondent No. 3. the then Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, which order has been confirmed by the order dated 10.4.92 of the appeilate authority, respondent No. 2, dismissing the appeal.2. While passing the dismissal order, the appointing authority purported to. have exercised powers under the provisions of clause 8 (2), Proviso (b) of the U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. 1991 dispensing with the regular enquiry on the ground that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the enquiry. The grounds of dismissal, as stated in the dismissal order, were that the petitioner sent a letter dated 27.12.91 directly to the Governor, Uttar Pradesh, making some demands and further stating therein that in case the demands were not fulfilled, he would co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(2)AWC847
J.C. Gupta, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 10.12.96 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and the order dated 30.8.96 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 in revision filed by the petitioner under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act.2. The facts may be stated in a narrow compass. The petitioner filed suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the respondent No. 1 on the ground of default in payment of rent. The respondent No. 1 denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and further alleged that there were no arrears of rent as the same were paid to the house owner Smt. Kripa Devi and after her the rent was realized by her sons and daughters. The trial court, however, repelled the defence and decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said decree, respondent No. 1 filed revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. During the pendency of revision, an application ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2113
ORDERO.P. Garg, J.1. This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C. with the prayer that the XVIth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Meerut Smt. Indira Asheesh be directed to reopen the two Sessions Trials Nos. 2240/95 and 2241/95, State of U.P. v. Kamal Kumar Gautam and the same be decided expeditiously.2. In spite of service of notice, respondents 1 to 3 have not entered appearance. Heard Sri S. K. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. on behalf of respondents 4 and 5.3. The present case has the chequered facts. An incident which took place on 21-4-1995 gave rise to two sessions trials one 2240 of 1995 and the other 2241 of 1995 under Sections 366/376, I.P.C. and 25/4, Arms Act, Respondents 1 to 3 are the accused persons. The Sessions Judge, Meerut, transferred the two trials to the Court of XVIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Meerut by his order dated ! 1-8-1995. The said Court was then presided over by Sri Rajvir Singh. The transfer applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(2)AWC1047
ORDERS.L. Saraf, J.1. On 24th August, 1997, I issued a show-cause notice to the District Magistrate. Allahabad, the Chief Engineer (East) U. P. Jal Nigam, Allahabad and one P. P. Misra, Junior Engineer, Construction Division, U. P. Jal Nigam, Allahabad to show cause as to why the drinking water is not being made available to the people of Chaka Block and directed them to restore the water supply within a period of twenty four hours In the entire area of Chaka block.2. Today, in Court room the District Magistrate, the Chief Engineer (East), U. P. Jal Nigam. Allahabad and one Sri P. P. Misra. Junior Engineer are present and they have expressed their regret that such scarcity of water has occurred due to non-repair of water pump. Their submission Is that water pump has now been repaired and the water has been made available to the residents of Chaka block from 4 p.m. onwards since yesterday. The authorities have also brought in water tankers to meet the scarcity of water In remote places ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC530
Palok Basu and M. L. Singhal, JJ.1. Those who have the fortune of being personally acquainted with the honourable profession of law are perhaps at an advantageous position to appreciate the opportunities it provides, and sometimes the lack of it, to show one's merit for which it has come to be known as a profession of glorious uncertainties. Going shoulder to shoulder with brother colleagues in and outside the courts and then maintaining brotherhood of the sincerest level-inspite of representing contesting parties add luster to this great profession of law. Advocates in themselves constitute a strong body of citizens safeguarding social interests. It is this profession of law alone through which one may Join the Bench as Munsif (now Civil Judge-Junior Division), as District Judge, as High Court or even Supreme Court Justice. Our Constitutional provisions have thus bestowed this profession of law with singular honour and unparalleled dignity.2. Articles 233 to 237 of the Constitution of...
Tag this Judgment!