Allahabad Court February 2002 Judgments
Tribeni Prasad Patel Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC881; (2002)2UPLBEC1138a
S.K. Singh, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for issuance or a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 31.10.1996 (Annexure-1) and 22.8.1997 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 4 respectively.2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Class IV employee in the Allahabad Bank in the district Bulandshahr on 11.2.1981 on the death of his father Jagannath Prasad who was a confirmed Class IV employee in the said Bank. It has been stated that having worked for 89 days, without any rhyme or reason petitioner was asked not to work. In view of the aforesaid fact, petitioner states that he approached the concerned authorities from time to time but his claim for continuance was not considered on account of which he had to make a detailed representation on 8.5.1995 raising industrial dispute against the illegal and arbitrary order of termination of his service. As the petitioner happened to be a poor person and not ...
Tag this Judgment!Gauri Shanker Vs. District Judge, Maharajganj and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC988b; (2002)2UPLBEC1135
Anjani Kumar, J.1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs :'(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 dated 18.3.1998 and 6.4.1988, respectively ;(ii) to Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to make reference of petitioner's claim under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act ;(iii) to issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice ;(iv) to award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.'2. The facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that in the year 1983, petitioner's land as well as the lands belonging to other persons were acquired by the State Government for the purposes of construction of the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Maharajganj. The Land Acquisit...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Mohan (Minor) Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1002
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his share in his ancestral house having an area of 2300 sq. ft. which is situate in village Marawa, tehsil and district Basil, except in accordance with law.2, The case pleaded in the writ petition is that the petitioner Lal Mohan and his brother Vijai Pal Chowdhury (respondent No. 4) are grandsons of Sahdeo and their names were mutated over the said plot after the death of Sahdeo. There is an ancestral house over plot No. 293 in which the petitioner and his brother Vijai Pal Chowdhury had equal share. The plot over which the house stood was not acquired in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act. However, for the purpose of construction of a road, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (Executive Engineer and Junior Engineer of Rashtriya Nirman Khand) obtained a sale deed of the house in question in favou...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdeo Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1084
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 judgment and order dated 7.9.1979 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia.2. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that the village where the land in dispute is situated, came under the operation of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act'), in the year 1965-66. In the basic year, name of the petitioner was recorded over the land in dispute in the revenue papers. Respondent No. 2, Smt. Khedani, since deceased, filed two objections claiming that she was the owner-in-possession of the said land and that the name of the petitioner was liable to be expunged from the revenue papers. The said objections were filed after inordinate delay, that too without an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonat...
Tag this Judgment!Committee of Management, Shri Krishna Geeta Rastriya Degree College Vs ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1157; (2002)2UPLBEC1423
M. Katju, J.1. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the Vice-Chancellor of the Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, dated 8.11.2001 (Annexure-12 to the petition).2. In our opinion, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that when an order is passed in violation of the Rules of the natural Justice or if it is wholly without jurisdiction, a writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of an alternative remedy. He has relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court and of this Court, e.g., Baburam v. Zila Parishad, AIR 1969 SC 556 ; Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitaram (U.P.) and Ors., 1988 (1) AWC 347 (SC), 1987 UPLBEC 734. etc. In our opinion, these decisions do not lay down any absolute proposition that a writ petition can never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy if there is ...
Tag this Judgment!Viresh Kumar Vs. Chairman/Anushashanik Adhikari, Hindon GramIn Bank an ...
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1185; (2002)3UPLBEC2209
R.B. Misra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction in the nature of certtorari quashing the impugned order dated 6.5.1998 (Annexure-II) and has further prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in service and pay him all back wages and emoluments.2. Heard Sri S.K. Yadav. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh, Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.3. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee as a messenger in the Hlndon Gramin Bank on the oral direction of the Manager. He was making entries in the pass books, ledgers, vouchers, etc. The petitioner was suspended by respondent (Chairman/Anushashnik Adhikari). Charge-sheet was issued on 9.9.1996 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) by respondent No. 3, i.e., the Branch Manager. The petitioner was suspended for his Involvement in misappropriation of bank money and...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kishore Singh and anr. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Singh and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC1722
I.M. Quddusi, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists.2. This revision has been filed against the order dated 11.1.2002 passed by 11 Additional District Judge, Bahraich in Civil Appeal No. 80 of 1999 deciding the application C-46 and its objection C-50. The application was made by the appellant for issuing commission which has been rejected.3. In the case of Ganga Saran v. Civil Judge. Hapur, Ghaziabad, 1991 (1) AWC 213 (FB), the Full Bench comprising of Hon'ble the Chief Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy. Hon'ble V.N. Khare, J. and Hon'ble V.N. Mehrotra. J.. (as they were then), framed two questions for decision which are as follows :(1) 'Whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in Qamruddin v. Rosul Baksh, 1990 ID AWC 308 (SO : 1989 (?) LCD 534 : 1990 (1) ARC 250 (SC) : 1990 SCFBRC 76 (SC), has the effect of overruling the Full Bench decision of this Court in Jupiter Chit Fund (Pvt.) Ltd, v. Dwarka Diesh, 1979 AWC 371 : AIR 1979 All 218 : 1979 ARC 325 (FB), as affirmed by the judg...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Kiran Bala Verma Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2002
Reported in: 2002(3)AWC2134; [2002(94)FLR308]; (2002)3UPLBEC2529
D.S. Sinha and Onkareshwar Bhatt, JJ. 1. Heard Sri Shashi Kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri V. N. Agrawal, learned standing counsel of the State of U.P., representing the respondent Nos. 1. 2, 3 and 4.2. In the instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court is called upon to adjudicate whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regularization contemplated in the provisions of Section 31C of the U.P. Higher Education Services Commission Act. 1980. (hereinafter called the Act) providing for regularizetion of a teacher appointed on ad hoc basis in a college governed by the provisions of the Act.3. A perusal of the order of appointment dated 30th September, 1991, a photostat copy of which is appended to the petitioner as Annexure-III, clearly indicates that the petitioner was appointed as a part-time lecturer of Music (Tabla), purely on temporary basis, with effect from 1st October, 1991.4. According to Clause (a) of Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Bhakti Sharan Vs. Commissioner, Jhansi and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC885
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who applied for grant of fire arm licence under the Arms Act was denied by the Licensing Authority/District Magistrate. Banda, and the reason assigned is that the petitioner has not been able to produce the documents showing that he is a contractor of P.W.D. The City Magistrate has also submitted in his report that there is no apprehension of life and property of the petitioner. The Licensing Authority has further stated that it appears that the applicant only wants to possess a firm arm for his status, the district Banda is sensitive area from crime point of view and, therefore, the licence should be granted only when it is necessary. The Licensing Authority has further stated that the petitioner has not been able to prove that he has genuine necessity of holding a fire arm. Therefore, the Licensing Authority rejected the application of the petitioner.2. Aggrieved by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Chand and ors. Vs. Board of Revenue, Allahabad and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-11-2002
Reported in: 2002(2)AWC932
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh. counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing of the order dated 20th November, 2001 passed by Board of Revenue, Allahabad and the order dated 22nd April, 1999 passed by Additional Commissioner,3. The facts of the case as given in the writ petition are ; petitioners' father filed a suit under Section 229B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the Court of Additional Commissioner for declaration of bhumidhari rights of Plot No- 84 impleading respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 as defendants. The case of the plaintiff was that father of respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5. i,e.. late Sri Lobhi, took an advance of Rs. 6,750 and issued a receipt on plain paper containing his thumb impression on 9.5.1979 as advance against plot No. 84 area 8 dismal, It was pleaded by the plaintiff that father of defendants in his life-time avoided to execute the sale-deed and subsequ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »