Allahabad Court November 2001 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.
Umesh Singh Vs. Secretary (Medical and Health) Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC72; (2002)1UPLBEC718
D. S. Sinha and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. List has been revised. No one appears for the petitioner. Sri Vinay Malviya, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondents, is present and has been heard.2. By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is a classic instance of the prevailing rampant abuse of the newly developed Judicial mechanism of Public Interest Litigation, frequently used by unscrupulous petitioners to serve their personal interest, and not to protect the interest of those for whom it has been designed, the petitioner prays for Issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to transfer one Sri Ram Vibhuti Singh. Pharmacist at Primary Health Centre, Pattherdewa in the district of Deoria to another district. Further prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents may be commanded to get the residential accommodation allotted to Sri Ram Vibhuti Singh vacated.3. It is pertinent to notice that Sri Ram Vib...
Jangi Lal Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC59
R.H. Zaidi, J. 1. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.12.1972 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad. Prayer for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to act in accordance with law has also been made. 2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that in the basic year, Khata No. 158 was recorded in the name of the petitioner, Jangi Lal. On receipt of C.H. Form No. 5, objection was filed by Miru, respondent No. 4, claiming that he was the co-tenure holder to the extent of 1/2 share in the said Khata on the basis of pedigree which is given below : Deena _____________________________/_________________________ / / Reepu Bhuwar / / Smt. Murli(daughter) Meeru / (respondent No.4) Masuriadeen (Son) / Jangi Lal (Petitioner) 3. It was ple...
Ram Pyare Patel Vs. Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Agro-indust ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC202; (2002)1UPLBEC628
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs :(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the representation of petitioner dated 15.7.2001 ; (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 to grant approval of posting of petitioner as has been forwarded through letter dated 29.6.1991 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) ; (iii) to issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ; (iv) to award the cost of petition.' 2. Petitioner in fact seeks the execution of the order dated 22/29.6.1991 said to have been passed by the respondents which according to the petitioner, they have yet not executed. Petitioner says that he has already made a representation. Petitioner now approaches this Court to get the order, passed in the year 1991, executed. This Court under Article...
Sardar Singh Vs. District Magistrate, Meerut and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-24-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC77; (2002)1UPLBEC63
D.S. Sinha and Lakshmi Bihari, JJ.1. Heard Sri N. L. Pandey, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, at length and in detail.2. For the existing dilapidated building of the Primary School in village Saudat Sheopuri, Tehsil Mawana, Block Parikshitgarh, district Meerut, the Gram Panchayat of the village has decided to construct a new building of the school at plot bearing Khasra No. 22.3. The petitioner invokes the assistance of this Court through instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to stall the proposed construction of the new building of the school.4. It appears that there was some dispute about the land, the site of the proposed construction of the building, and in that connection, the District Magistrate, Meerut, the respondent No. 1, had passed an order dated October 19, 2001. staying the proposed construction. Later, on an enqui...
inder Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2001
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC958
R.B. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 10.7.1999 and 30.6.1998. The petitioner has also sought writ of certiorari for quashing the above two orders and has sought directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the above two orders contained in Annexures-1 and 2 respectively in the writ petition. The petitioner has further sought directions in the form of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the contracts ignoring the above two orders and to release his outstanding payments to the petitioner.2. The brief facts relevant to the present writ petition are that the petitioner firm is engaged primarily in taking Government contracts pertaining to constructions and repair of buildings. As contended by the petitioner it has been successfully performing the said business for the last several years. The petitioner is registered with the respondents (Annexure-3 to the w...
Ashok Pratap Singh Vs. Deputy Cane Commissioner, Bareilly and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC140; (2002)1UPLBEC606
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 18th August, 2001 passed by respondent No. 2. Annexure-7 to the writ petition, directing the recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,337 petitioner, an employee of the Co-operative Society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, has filed this writ petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been regularly paying house rent for the accommodation since his appointment in the Society as the accommodation has been allotted to him by the Society. In thesecircumstances, he cannot be subjected to the payment of Rs. 13,337. This Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into the disputed questions of fact. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a petition/ representation to the Registrar under Section 128 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act and an appeal further lies under Section ...
Harish Chandra Mishra Vs. Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Spg. Mills Federa ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC207; [2002(93)FLR910]; (2002)1UPLBEC291
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Petitioner, who claims to be an employee of Nagina Sahkari Katai Mills Ltd., Nagina, district Bijnor, which is a cooperative society registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. 1965, has challenged the order dated 1.6.2001 by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated on account of the fact that the mill has been finally closed down with immediate effect. The termination order also says that according to the service conditions, the emoluments of other payments, which are payable to the petitioner shall be paid to the petitioner as soon as the grant of State Government is received and after furnishing no dues certificate by the petitioner.2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3. Sri Ojha has raised three objections ; firstly that since the order dated 1.6.2001 is challenged by means...
Sajida Begum and ors. Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Farrukhabad a ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC131; (2002)1UPLBEC60
D.S. Sinha, J. 1. On 5th February, 1991, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners undertook to serve the respondent Nos. 2 to 9 by Dasti notices within 15 days. No steps were taken to honour the said undertaking.2. Noticing the lapse on the part of the petitioner to honour the undertaking given by their counsel, and in the absence of any prayer for condonation of the lapse or for time to take requisite steps, the Court, on 29th April, 1991, dismissed the petition for want of prosecution. 3. On 11th July, 1991, a restoration application, supported by the affidavit of the registered clerk of the counsel, was moved, though beyond the period of limitation yet it was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay. 4. On 28th February. 1997, on the request of the learned counsel of the petitioners, the Court granted ten days' time for filing delay condonation application. Again, no delay condonation application was filed within the time granted. The matter was up before...
Kamleshwar Nath Srivastava Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC138; [2002(92)FLR199]; (2002)1UPLBEC608
D.S. Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri B.P. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-applicant, and Sri V.N. Agarwal, learned standing counsel of the State of U.P., representing the respondents. 2. After the lapse of an interminable period of more than eight years, the petitioner-applicant seeks to have the order and judgment of the Court dated 12th October, 1993, reviewed. 3. The review application is accompanied by a application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, and is supported by an affidavit of the registered clerk of the learned counsel. 4. The Court has perused the averments made in support of the delay condonation application and has not been able to find any tangible ground muchless sufficient to condone the delay. The ground set up is that on 24th July. 2000, the petitioner-applicant came to enquire about the case and, on inquiry from the High Court office by the aforesaid registered clerk, it was revealed that the petition had ...
Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Nov-23-2001
Reported in: 2002(1)AWC198; [2002(92)FLR435]; (2002)1UPLBEC571
Anjani Kumar, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Singhvi for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as well as learned standing counsel representing the respondent No. 1.2. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to release the gratuity, fund, pension, etc. to the petitioner and pay its arrears. According to the assertion made in the writ petition, petitioner's mother Smt. Rama was in employment of the respondents Nagar Nigam, Varanasi and she died in the year 1979. It is submitted that for the gratuity and other post-retirement benefits an application had been filed sometime in the year 1980 by the father of the petitioner, namely. Dhannu Ram and according to the petitioner no action has been taken as yet. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner at the Bar that Dhannu Ram. who had filed this application, is still alive. In these circumstances, petition...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »