Allahabad Court February 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kuber Singh Vs. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Fatehpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-02-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1044
O.P. Garg, J.1. The only moot point for consideration in the present writ petition !s whether a motion of no-confidence brought against Smt. Nathiya Devl-respondent No. 4 who admittedly is elected Pradhan of the village had been carried out in the meeting, which was convened on 16.12.1996 in pursuance of the notice issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer-respondent No. 1 (for short 'D.P.R.O.') or not. in view of the admitted position that out of 11 members present and voting, only 7 members had voted in favour of the motion of no-confidence while four voted against it.2. Smt. Nathiya Devi-respondent No. 4 was elected as Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Bhurchuni, Block Dhata, in district Fatehpur on 20th April, 1995. On 20.11.1996, an application was moved duly signed by 9 membersof the Gram Panchayat before the respondent No. 1 to convene a meeting to consider the motion of no-confidence against respondent No. 4. Kuber Sirigh-petitioner is the Up Pradhan of the village. He was also one ...
Tilak Ram Singh and Others Vs. Cane Commissioner, Lucknow and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(1)AWC894; [1999(81)FLR919]
D.K. Seth, J.1. On the ground of certain lapses committed by the petitioner in the season 1995-96 when he was appointed as seasonal clerk, he was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding initiated on 9.7.1997. The disciplinary proceeding was concluded on 9.10.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. N. L. Pandey relying on Regulation 27 of the U. P. Cane Co-operative Service Regulations. 1975, contends that disciplinary proceeding in respect of a lapse committed during a particular season, is to be initiated and concluded before the end of the crushing season or within the time stipulated therein, whichever is latter, and in default such disciplinary proceeding shall be deemed to havebeen automatically dropped. Therefore, according to him, the lapse committed by the petitioner in crushing season 1995-96, cannot be gone into after the end of the said crushing season, namely, on 9.7.1997. He alternately argues that even if it can be so initiated. It has to be concluded within the time-...
Smt. Anaro Devi Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1062
M. Katju and S.L. Saraf, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned notification dated 23.4.1984, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, by which the land of the petitioner was requisitioned under Section 7 of the U. P. Rural Development (Requisitioning of Land] Act, 1948.3. The petitioner claims to be Bhumidhar of plot No. 319, which is recorded in her name in the revenue record. The land in question was requisitioned but thereafter has neither been released in favour of the petitioner nor has It been acquired. It is well-settled that there is distinction between 'acquisition' and 'requisition'. In the case of acquisition of property, the title in the property passes to the person or authority who has acquired it, whereas in the case of requisition, only possession and not the title passes, and that too for a limited period.4. A perusal of the statement of objects of the United Provinces Rural Development (Requis...
Committee of Management Janta Inter College, Azamgarh and Others Vs. R ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1090; (1999)1UPLBEC524
O.P. Garg J.1. These are two identical connected writ petitions by which the order dated 19.6.1997 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (for Short 'D.I.O.S.'), Azamgarh has been challenged. The difference in the two writ petitions is that over and above the relief claimed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21044 of 1997, an additional prayer for appointing the Authorised Controller to manage the affairs of the institution during the pendency of the writ petition has been made in the subsequent Writ Petition No. 26286 of 1997. Since the controversy involved in the two writ petitions requires scrutiny of the validity or otherwise of the same order and the pleadings of the parties are almost identical, it is proposed to decide these two writ petitions together by this common judgment. Reference to various annexures is with regard to the documents filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21044 of 1997.2. There is a registered society known as Janta Shiksha Parish ad under the aegis of w...
Agauta Sugar and Chemicals Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)AWC1250
S.H.A. Raza, J. 1. The question of facts and law involved in both the abovementioned writ petitions are common and hence both the writ petitions are being disposed of by single common Judgment. However, Writ Petition No. 775 (M/B) of 1997 'Agauta Sugar and Chemicals v. State of U. P. and others' shall be the leading case. 2. Agauta Sugar and Chemicals, by means of the Writ Petition bearing No. 775 (M/B) of 1997, has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certtorari quashing the impugned recovery certificate dated 13.2.1997 issued by the Cane Commissioner. U. P. Lucknow and the recovery citation dated 21.2.1997 issued by the Tehsildar, Bulandshahr contained in Annexures-6 and 7 to the writ petition. The petitioner also prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent not to adopt coercive method of recovery against the petitioner on the basis of recovery certificate dated 13.2.1997 and recovery citation dated 21.2.1997. 3. The petitioner holds an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- Next ›