Allahabad Court April 2001 Judgments
Meghraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-26-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1880; (2001)3UPLBEC2096
Sudhir Narain, J.1. The petitioner seeks to quash the order dated 7.4.2001 of Panchayat Raj Officer, Bulandshahr, respondent No. 2 whereby he has asked the petitioner to hand over charge of the office of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Hazratpur Samsapur, district Bulandshahr to Up-Pradhan.2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the election for the office of Pradhan of Gram Panchayat, Hazratpur Samsapur, block and district Bulandshahr look place on 14.6.2000. The petition was declared elected and he was given certificate to this effect on 27.6.2000. He thereafter started functioning as Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. Certain persons made complaint against the petitioner that he is working as Conductor under the employment of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (in short the 'Corporation') and as such he is disqualified to hold the office of Pradhan. The matter was referred to the prescribed authority under Section 6A of U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (in short the Act). The prescribed autho...
Tag this Judgment!L.M.L. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2001
Reported in: AIR2001All321
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing of the 15 per cent surcharge levied on the energy charge in the electricity bill of the petitioner for August, 2000.2. The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act and is engaged in manufacturing two wheelers [scooters and motor cycles). The petitioner entered into an agreement with U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as UPSEB] on 31.10.1996 for supply of electrical energy in the form of a three phase alternative current at declared pressure of 132 KV and a power not exceeding 800 KV to its factory at A-1, Pankl Industrial Area, Site-111, Kanpur. The petitioner claims that it is running a non-continuous process industry and has to observe peak hour restriction and, consequently, it does not consume power from 6.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. A new tariff was enforced with effect from 9.8.2000 and in the bill dated 5.9.2000 a surcharge of Rs. 6,...
Tag this Judgment!State of U.P. and Another Vs. U.P. Public Service Tribunal, Iii, Luckn ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2001
Reported in: 2001LabIC3187; (2001)2UPLBEC1787
Lakshmi Bihari, J.1. Heard Shri Vinay Malviya, the learned standing counsel representing the petitioners and Shri K.P. Agrawal, learned senior advocate representing respondent No. 2.2. The petitioner-State of U.P. has filed the instant petition praying for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of the Tribunal dated 4.2.1980 and has further prayed for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 4.2.1980.3. The respondent No. 2 was appointed on the post of Taqavi Accounts Clerk by an order dated 9th July, 1963 a copy whereof is Annexure-'3' to the writ petition. The relevant portion of the said order runs as follows :'The following candidates who appeared for the Competitive Test for the post of Taqavi Accounts Clerk, in the scale 60-3-72-EB-3-87-EB-3-90-4-110, are posted in the blocks noted against them. They should report for duty to the B.D.Os. concerned within ...
Tag this Judgment!Jai Shanker and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2001
Reported in: [2001(90)FLR160]; 2001LabIC3185; (2001)2UPLBEC1395
D. S. Sinha and Anjani Kumar, JJ. 1. Heard Sri Nar Singh Narain Verma, holding brief of Sri V. K. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri Sandeep Mukerji, the learned standing counsel of the State of U. P., representing the respondents, at length and in detail. 2. Sri Jal Shanker and Babu Ram, the erstwhile police constables of the State of U. P., faced departmental inquiry under Section 7 of the Police Act on the charge that while serving under the control of Superintendent of Police. G.R.P. at Moradabad, they were found absent from train guard duty which amounted to dereliction in performance of duty. 3. The inquiry culminated into finding holding the petitioners guilty and led to passing of the order dated 1st August, 1983, inflicting upon them the punishment of removal. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioners approached the U. P. Public Services Tribunal through a claim petition which was dismissed vide order dated 30th November, 1988...
Tag this Judgment!Amulya Singh and Others Vs. Nagareeya Sahkari Bank Ltd., Varanasi and ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2001
Reported in: 2001(3)AWC1746; (2001)2UPLBEC1285
INTRODUCTION Yatindra Singh, J.1. Is a Cooperative Society a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India? Does it perform public functions? is a writ petition maintainable against it for violation of non-statutory provision? What is meaning of the phrase, whose area of operation extends to more than one district occurring in the notification dated 4th March. 1972 (the 1972 Notification) under Section 122 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. 1965 (the Co-operative Societies Act)? These are the questions involved in these writ petitions. But before adverting to the facts of the cases, I would tike to explain meaning of few words as used by me in this judgment and details of the Appendix appended to this Judgment.WORDS AND DETAILS OF THE APPENDICES 2. In this Judgment, following words have meaning assigned to them below :(i) The Co-operative Societies Act means the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. 1965.(ii) The Banking Regulation Act means the Banking Regulation...
Tag this Judgment!Committee of Management, Ashrfia Intermediate College and anr. Vs. Dep ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2001
Reported in: (2001)2UPLBEC1646
Janardan Sahai, J.1. This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.8.1999, by which the writ petition of the appellant-committee of management of a minority institution challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Education, Azamgarh dated 20/22.7.1996 (Annexure-15) stands dismissed. The Committee of Management, the appellant manages an institution known as Ashrafia Intermediate College, Mahal, District Azamgarh, which is admittedly a minority Institution. The respondent No. 4 claimed to have been appointed in the institution in the year 1972. The case of the respondent No. 4 is that he was working continuously but he was not paid salary. This stand has been consistently denied by the appellant. It may be pertinent to mention here that the respondent No. 4 had earlier filed another writ petition being writ petition No. 615 of 1985 in which he prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding committee of management to treat him as a teach...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Mithilesh Dikshit Vs. Management Committee and Others
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: 2001LabIC3926; (2001)2UPLBEC1861
D.S. Sinha, J.1. Heard Shri Sant Sharan Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S, K. Mehrotra, learned brief-holder of the State of U. P., appearing for District Inspector of Schools. Ferozabad and State of U. P., at length and in detail. 2. The Principal prayer of the petitioner, who is the Head of the Hindi Department of B.D.M.M. Girls Degree College. Shikohabad, is that this Court may issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay her the arrears of salary for the period October and November, 1991 and the salary from March. 1993 onwards. Further prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents be restrained from interfering in her functioning as Head of the Hindi Department of the college. 3. The dispute about the petitioner's functioning as Head of the Hindi Department of the college does not survive, and the learned counsel of the petitioner states that instant petition may be treated to be confined only with regard to the payment of dues of salar...
Tag this Judgment!Shanti Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-20-2001
Reported in: (2001)2UPLBEC1393
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.2. Petitioner Shri Daya Shankar Tiwari was a Class IV employee of B.S.A.V. Inter College, Gola, Gorakhpur, which is a recognised institution receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government.3. Shri Daya Shankar Tiwari was appointed on 6.12.51 and he died on 20.11.87 while in service. The State Government issued a Government Order dated 24.2.89 providing for the benefit of family pension to non-teaching employees of State-aided Junior High Schools and High Schools institutions namely U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad. The aforesaid scheme providing for the benefit of family pension under the aforesaid Government Order was made applicable with effect from 1.1.1989. The petitioner's claim for family pension under the aforesaid Government Order dated 24.2.89 has been rejected by the Joint Director of Education vide its order dated 1.3.97 on the ground that petitioner's husband died on 20.11.87 i.e. befo...
Tag this Judgment!Sheo Pyari and Others Vs. Shiam Sundar Sunar
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: 2001(2)AWC1607
Kamal Kishore, J. 1. This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13.3.1986 passed by the Court of First Additional Civil Judge. Lucknow in Appeal No. 145 of 1986, Gaya Prasad and another v. Shiam Sundar, dismissing the appeal of the plaintiffs-appellants and confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.2.1978 passed by the Court of First Additional Munsif, Lucknow inSuit Wo. 52 of 1972. Gaya Prasad v, Shiam Sundar, dismissing the suit of plaintiffs-appellants.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiffs-appellants have filed a suit for specific performance of contract of re-sale. The aforesaid suit for specific performance of contract was dismissed by the learned Munsif. In its appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif was confirmed and the first appeal was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs-appellants have preferred this appeal.3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.4. It has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Mukesh Kumar Gupta and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Apr-19-2001
Reported in: 2001CriLJ3902
ORDER1. Heard Sri A.D. Giri, learned Senior Advocate, Sri Vijay Prakash and Sri A. Samad, learned Counsels for the petitioners and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh for the respondents.2. The petitioner No. 1 has challenged the detention order dated 16-2-2001 Annex-ure 1 to the writ petition passed under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 as amended. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent and by means of an amendment application the petitioner has placed on record the grounds of detention.3. Several arguments have been advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner but in our opinion the very first ground is sufficient to allow this petition. learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner No. 1 who was Superintendent in Custom and Central Excise Department was that by misusing his office he was abetting smuggling activities. The petitioner No. 1 was suspended on 5-10-2000 whi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »