Allahabad Court April 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.
Rajiv Tandon Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Kanpur and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1529
P.K. Jain, J.1. Heard Sri Shyam Bahadur holding brief of Sri R.K. Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.N. Agrawal learned standing counsel.2. Petitioner purchased a plot of land from respondent No. 3 and claiming that the Respondent No. 3 was a registered society got the sale deed registered without payment of required stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act. Respondent No. 2exercising power of Collector, issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why he may not be directed to pay the required stamp duty. After hearing the petitioner and considering his objection, the respondent No. 2 passed an order, dated 5.9.1980 holding that the petitioner has failed, to establish that the society from whom the land was purchased was a registered society. The respondent No. 2, therefore, by the impugned order directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty worth Rs. 665 and penalty amounting to Rs. 6,650. A revision was preferred before Respondent No. 1 which was dismissed by order da...
Laxman Singh Vs. Atirika Sachiv/Samanya Prabandhak, Prashasan, U.P. Co ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1545
V.M. Sahai, J.1. The question that arises in this writ petition is whether refusal to regularise on ad-hoc appointment of the petitioner was contrary to Regulations in 1985. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on 18.1.1983 on the post of Co-operative Supervisor on ad-hoc basis. The petitioner joined in January 1983 and the petitioner along with 45 other Cooperative Supervisors were terminated from service which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 6243 of 1985 in which termination order was stayed and the petitioner continued his service and the writ petition was allowed on 20.11.1992. The judgment dated 20.11.1992 was challenged by respondent No. 4 in Special Appeal No. 5 of 1993 which was decided on 7.8.1995 wherein the respondent No. 3 directed to consider the claim of petitioner for regular appointment. The claim of the regularisation was considered by the respondents and the petitioner's claim was rejected by order dated 8.1.1996 which has been challenged by...
Babu Ram Verma Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission, Allah ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1555; (1999)2UPLBEC1012
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Acting Principal by the Committee of Management on 23.12.1989 after the regular Principal had retired on 30.6.1987 and Sri Karam Singh Manav the senior-most teacher who was appointed as Acting Principal was suspended on 3.12.1989. From Annexure-2 to the writ petition. It appears that the said Sri Karam Singh Manav by his letter, dated 31.12.1989 requested to the Committee of Management to permit him to work as Lecturer in Geography since he did not desire to work as Principal. The order dated 23.12.1989 was challenged in Writ Petition No.6833 of 1987 connected with Writ Petition No. 23330 at 1990 between Prem Singh Manav v. District Inspector of School, in which the petitioner was figuring as respondent No. 3. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court on 30.4.1991 Inter alia holding that the respondent No. 3 being senior-most Lecturer as mentioned above, is entitled to work as Acting Principal. The ord...
Yogendra Nath Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1563; (1999)2UPLBEC1318
O.P. Garg, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order dated 13.3.1995, Annexure-9 to the writ petition, passed by the State Government has been challenged primarily on the ground that the secular nature of the management is sought to be usurped and upturned by the imposition or introduction of minority status to an education institution, in spite of the fact that it was never intended to be established as minority institution under the bye-laws and Memorandum of Association by which it is governed. This controversy has cropped up in the following circumstances.2. There is a registered society with the name of National Association having its own bye-laws. It established a Junior High School in Bara, district Ghazipur, in the year1948, which came to be upgraded as Higher Secondary School in the year 1966 and in course of time, as an Intermediate College in the year 1972. It is now known as Bara Inter College, Bara, district Ghazipur. W...
Narang Industries Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1692
M.C. Agarwal, J. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, the petitionerchallenges an order dated 17th January, 1984, passed by the Excise Commissioner, U. P, levying a sura of Rs. 19.278 under Rule 466 of the U. P. Excise Manual.2. The petitioner is a distiller and manufacturer of country liquor holding a licence in Form P.O. 2 and for the year 1977-78 it was granted a contract under the provisions of Rule 417 of the U. P. Excise Manual for supply of country liquor to the Government bonded warehouse at Varanasi and Gyanpur. The impugned order has been passed on the allegations that the petitioner M/s. Narang Distillery who was granted a licence in Form C.L. 1 failed to supply country liquor from 5th July. 1977 and had thus violated the conditions of the licence which required the dealer to maintain certain minimum stock and, therefore, in terms of Rule 466 of the U. P. Excise Manual it was liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 17.50 per alcohol litre (A.L.J. The pe...
State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Gorakhpur Vs. Ram Chandra Dubey and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(2)AWC1695
O. P. Garg, J.1. An Interesting and important question of law, that has been canvassed in the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is whether the reinstatement of workmen without a specific order for the payment of back wages would necessarily mean rejection of the claim for such wages. To understand the background in which the controversy has come to be raised, it Is necessary to narrate certain facts.2. Twenty-six workmen, Including the respondent Nos. 1 to 23 were employed by the petitioner-Bank between 4th May, 1961 and November, 1962. The services of all the 26 employees were terminated on 16.8.1969. An Industrial dispute was raised and the Central Government by its notification dated 21.6.1985 referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur:'Whether the action of State Bank of India In relation to theirGorakhpur Branch in terminating the services of Sri Ram Chandra Dubey and 25...
Kailash Singh (Tsi) Vs. Director (igp), Traffic, Lucknow and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1977; (1999)2UPLBEC1279
D.K. Seth, J.1. By an order dated26.7.1996 the petitioner, who was in the Armed Police Force, wastransferred as Traffic Sub-Inspectoral Varanasi. The petitioner has nowbeen sought to be transferred fromTraffic Department to Armed PoliceForce by an order dated 23.3.1998.This order dated 23.3.1998 containedin Annexure-4 to the writ petition hassince been challenged in this writpetition.2. Relying on Regulation 525 of the U. P. Police Regulation, learned counsel for the petitioner Shri R.K. Pandey submits that without sanction of the Inspector General of Police, such person could not be transferred.Therefore, the order is wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio and liable to be quashed.3. Sri K.R. Singh, learned standing counsel on the other hand points out that Regulation 524 empowers the Superintendent to transfer all officers below the rank of Sub-Inspector within his District without indicating any qualification or reservation as to the one branch or otherwise. Whereas Regulati...
State of U.P., Through Divisional Director, Social Forestry Shahjahanp ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC1968
R. H. Zaidi, J.1. Present batch of writ petitions arises out of proceedings under Section 9 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') and is directed against the order passed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, dated 5.9.1984, 14.1.1988 and 4.5.1988. Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the said orders.2. Since all these petitions are directed against the common orders, the questions of law and fact involved in these cases are also common, they were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.3. The dispute relates to 128.26 acres of land situated in village Sherpur, District Shahjahanpur. thereinafter referred to as the land in dispute). In the basic year, the land in dispute was recorded in the name of contesting respondents. Some of the plots were recorded as 'Gram Sabha' and as 'Ceiling' land in the revenue papers. 63 objections were filed by the petitioners before the Assista...
Yogesh Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2181
D.K. Seth, J.1. The petitioner was transferred from Lucknow to Dehradun by an order dated 31.3.1998 and thereafter by an order dated 26.10.1998, the petitioner was again transferred from Dehradun to Lucknow. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 37211 of 1998 since been disposed of on 8.12.1998. In the said order dated 8.12.1998, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation, if made. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by an order dated 4.3.1999.2. Mr. R. K, Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as sails these two orders dated 26.10.1998 and 4.3.1999 contained in Annexures-4 and 9 respectively, on the ground that the petitioner's daughter is studying in High School and is appearing in the final examination from Dehradun. Therefore, he should not be transferred at this Juncture and he should be permitted till the examination of his daughter is over. He further contends that so far as the order dated 4.3.1999 by which his repre...
Ram Dev Dixit Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-05-1999
Reported in: 1999(3)AWC2201
A. K. Yog and Kamal Kishore, JJ. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by Ram Dev Dixit (petitioner) challenging the judgment and order dated 4th February. 1986 dismissing Claim Petition No. 588(T)/V/1985 (Old Petition No. 309 (T)/IV/80 (Ram Dev Dixist v. State of U. P. and 2 others ) whereby the U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. V. Lucknow (opposite party No. 4) (hereinafter referred as the 'Tribunal') disallowed the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary for the period during 19th September, 1977 to 29th December, 1978 during which the petitioner had remained out of job in consequence of termination order dated 19th September, 1977 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The Tribunal took the view that reinstatement of the petitioner vide order dated 27th November, 1978 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), which contained a clause to the effect that the employee shall be allowed to join his duties only after submitting an application that...