Allahabad Court September 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.
Shiv Pratap Singh Vs. District Magistrate/Addititional District Magist ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC139; 2000CriLJ855
S.R. Singh. J,1. Impugned herein is the notice dated 8.7.1999 (Annexure-1 to the petition) issued bythe Additional District Magistrate, Etawah thereby calling upon the petitioner to show cause why should an order under Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Goondas Act. 1970 (In short the 'Act'), be not passed against him. To short-list, the petitioner in the show cause notice has been arraigned to be indulging in criminal activities within the peripheries of the conditions referred to in Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 3 (1) of the Act and as many as five cases have been cited manifesting his criminal antecedents as per report submitted by the police.2. The question that begs consideration is two-fold ; firstly whether initiation of proceedings for externment under Section 3 of the Act by issuing a show cause notice is contingent upon recital of material nature of allegations in the notice? To rephrace it, whether recital of the general nature of material allegations against the indivi...
State of U. P. and Others Vs. Rajendra Kumar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC155
N. K. Mitra, C.J. and M. Katju, J. 1. This Special Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 16.3.99.2. The grandfather of respondent No. 4 was a Government servant who died in harness and on his death, the petitioner applied for appointment under the dying-ln-harness Rules. The father of the petitioner. Lallu Ram was the only son of the petitioner's grandfather Prahlad, and the petitioner was a dependant of his grandfather Prahlad and hence he applied for appointment under the dying-in-harness Rules. Admittedly the petitioner's father Lallu Ram predeceased Prahlad.3. Under the relevant dying-in-harness Rules, a member of the family of the deceased Government servant is entitled to get appointment under the dying-in-harness Rules. Rule 2 (c) of the U. P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 states :'family' shall include the following relations of the deceased Government Servant : (i) Wife or husband ; ...
Jai Ram Vs. Director, Local Fund Audit, U. P., Allahabad and Another
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC157; [2000(85)FLR131]; (1999)3UPLBEC2306
A. K. Yog, J. 1. Petitioner Is aggrieved from the order of transfer dated May 20, 1999 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition). Petitioner earlier filed Writ Petition No. 31428 of 1999 which was finally disposed of by learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated July 30. 1999 (copy of which has been filed as Annexure-VIII). In compliance to the said order of High Court, the concerned authority decided his representation vide order dated 6th September. 1999 (Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition).2. Petitioner has not pointed out any Illegality or manifest error apparent on the face of record in the said order dated 6th September. 1999. Petitioner has made his submission primarily on the ground that transfer order is vitiated because of mala fide of the concerned officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to paragraphs 6 and 10 of the writ petition in support of the ground of 'mala fide', in para 21 of the petition It is alleged that language of the order itself speaks of the mala...
Ram Avatar Swarankar Vs. Sub-divisional Agricultural Extension Officer ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3146
O. P. Garg, J. 1. The petitioner Ram Autar Swarnkar was a Junior Clerk in the office of Sub-Divisional Agriculture Extension Officer, Karvi at Chitrakoot. He was placed under suspension on 29.5.1998 in contemplation of departmental enquiry. Ramesh Chand Shukla, District Agriculture Officer, respondent No. 2 was appointed enquiry officer. A charge-sheet dated 30.6.1998 was served on the petitioner on 2.7.1998. There were as many as 12 charges against the petitioner. He submitted a detailed reply to each one of the charges on 18.8.1998. A report of enquiry dated 28.9.1998 was submitted by the enquiry officer-respondent No. 2. A copy of the report of enquiry is Annexure-14 to the writ petition. A notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.1.1999 to show cause and ultimately after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner, he was removed from service on 27.1.1999, a copy of which is Annexure-16.2. The order of removal dated 27.1.1999 has been challenged by the petition...
Tajendra Pal Singh Vs. District Forest Officer, Gorakhpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3112
ORDERBinod Kumar Roy and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. The prayer of thepetitioner Virendra Slngh was to quash the order dated 4.6.1993 passed by respondent No. 3 the Forest Ranger, Forest Range Laxmipur (Van Prabhag III). Mahrajganj, as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ pelition. His further prayer is to command the Respondents to release the woods which have been taken away from his possession and not to interfere in his peaceful business.2. A persual of Annexure-3 shows that it is a seizure report submitted by Respondent No. 3 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahrajganj. Unfortunately the Chief Judicial Magistrate has not been impleaded as a parly-respondent by the petitioner nor has it been stated as to what order he has passed in relation to the seizure report. Its further persual shows that the Saw machine of Virendra Slngh alias Balbeer Singh. Proprietor of Singh Saw Mill was enquired into in presence of (i) Forest Officer, North Gorakhpur, (ii) Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nautanwa. ...
Pasupati Singh Vs. Collector, Gorakhpur and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: 1999(4)AWC3563; (1999)3UPLBEC2304
A.K. Yog, J.1. Heard Sri Prakash Padia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Bhim Singh Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. A. Upadhya, learned standing counsel for all the respondents.2. Learned counsel for the parties are agreed that petition may be decided finally at the admission stage as contemplated under rules of the Court.3. Petitioner claims a writ of mandamus, unfortunately for a purpose, not considering while Article 226 was incorporated in theConstitution. Sole purpose of the present petition is that authority be awakened from slumber and required to pass appropriate orders on the representation, first one, according to the petitioner, was filed as early as in December, 1998.4. It is, however, interesting to note that when petition was filed and taken up for admission, on 22nd September, 1999, learned single Judge hearing the case was pleased to grant time to the learned standing counsel for obtaining Instruction.5. Learned standing counsel, after perusing the...
Raj Pal Singh Vs. Executive Engineer, Koyala Sanchalan Khand and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-28-1999
Reported in: (2000)1UPLBEC354
A.K. Yog, J.1. List has been revised.2. Raj Pal Singh, petitioner, an employee of U.P. State Electricity Board was posted in Hardua Ganj Thermal Power Project, District Aligarh. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Executive Engineer Koyala Sanchalan Executive Engineer, Koyala Sanchalan Khand, Hardua Ganj Tapiya Pariyojana, Kasimpur, District Aligarh and Maha Prabhandhak, Harduaganj Termal Project, Kasimpur, Aligarh) are his superiors having control on him. Petitioner wants order dated 7-11-1992 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) to be quashed, whereby he was informed that he had superannuated after completing age of 60 years under relevant Rules and stands retired by treating his date of birth as 1-10-1932 as recorded in his service book.3. Petitioner, however, contends that he cannot be retired inasmuch as correct date of birth is 15-6-1942 as per School leaving certificate, which he had submitted along with representation for correction in his service book regarding his date of birth (Annexure C...
Satya Deo Singh Vs. Chief Electoral Officer, U.P., Lucknow and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC61
Jagdish Bhalla, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15th September, 1999 passed by the Returning Officer, 26 Suitanpur Parliamentary Constituency, opposite party No. 2 contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, rejecting the nomination of the petitioner.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. It has been submitted that in case any nomination of the candidate has been improperly rejected, the remedy available to him is by filing an election petition and not the writ petition. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon paragraphs 9 and 11 to 13 of the case of N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem Distt. and others, AIR 1952 SC 64, wherein it has been held as under :'(9) The question now arises whether the law of elections in this country contemplates that there ...
Satyendra Nath Mishra Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal, U.P. at Luckno ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC262; (1999)3UPLBEC2245
M. Katju and Shitla Prasad Srivastava, JJ. 1. The petitioner is challenging the order of the U. P. Public Service Tribunal. Annexure-5 to the petition. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that certain points were urged before the Tribunal but have not been dealt with by the Tribunal.2. The presumption in law is that the Tribunal or the lower court has dealt with all the points which were urged before it, and if a certain point is not dealt with by the Tribunal or Court then the presumption is that that point was not urged before it vide Shanti Swamp v. 1st A.D.J., 1978 ARC 342. It often happens that in the memorandum of appeal or petitionseveral points are taken but only some of the points are pressed, and hence the lower court or the Tribunal deals only with the points which are actually pressed. However, if the petitioner wishes to urge before the Tribunal that a point was not dealt with although pressed before the Court/Tribunal, then the petitioner should go to press before th...
Ashok Kumar Agrawal Vs. Kanpur Electricity Supply Administration
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-27-1999
Reported in: 2000(1)AWC369
D. K. Seth, J. 1. In this case the order dated 22.8.1997 passed by the appellate authority being Appeal No. I-D-II of 1997 has since been challenged. 2. It is alleged that a new meter was Installed in respect of the petitioner's service connection No. 65/3807 by the Kanpur Electric Supply Authority, hereinafter called as the 'KESA'. U. P. State Electricity Board, Kanpur, on 24.10.1996. A reading of the meter for determination of the consumption of electric energy was taken on 28.1.1997 after verification of the seal of the meter by an officer of the KESA. According to the petitioner normally when meter reading was taken, the seal number and the ampere number whereof were not noted. Subsequently thereafter another meter reading was noted by meter reader of KESA on 3.2.1997, which reveals that in case of bulk meter reading a different form is used and that it did not note the seal number or the ampere load etc. A checking was made by the respondents on 4.2.1997 and thereafter a notice wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »