Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2003All34
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. Nagar Nigam, Aligarh through its Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Aligarh, and Property Officer, Nagar Nigam, Aligarh, the three petitioners, have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs :(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the records of the case and quashing the judgment and order dated '1,5.2002 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) ; (b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for the records of the case and quashing the judgment and order dated 18.4.2001 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) ; (c) to issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the respondents from filling up the land with mud or in any way changing the nature of the land. (d) to issue any other, order, or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2003All29; (2002)3UPLBEC2774
ORDERS.P. Mehrotra, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs :-- '(a) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners' Intermediate Examination 2002 (Correspondence Course) conducted by the respondents. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to provide result cards of the Intermediate Examination 2002 to the petitioner. (c) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (d) Award costs.' 2. It is, inter alia, alleged by the petitioners that all the petitioners having deposited the requisite fee and having fulfilled necessary formalities for appearing in the Intermediate Examination, 2002 of the Madhyamlk Shiksha Parishad, U.P., the Principal of the college known as Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003CriLJ235
M. Katju, J.1. The petitioner is challenging the detention order dated 3-1-2002 Annexure 1 to the petition under N.S.A. A perusal of the grounds of detention copy of which is Annexure 2, shows that the allegations against the petitioner are that the petitioner had slaughtered a cow and the knife and rods were recovered from him. This incident caused communal tension and hence the impugned detention order was passed.2. Communal amity and harmony are absolutely essential for the progress of the nation. We cannot afford to have another Gujarat in U.P. Slaughter of cow hurts the sentiments of the Hindus and hence should not be committed. In our opinion cow slaughter affects public order because it is likely to incite communal tension. Hence it is not merely a case of law and order. We are also of the opinion that there was no delay in deciding the petitioner's representation. There is no merit in this petition. The writ petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003CriLJ681
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the detention order dated 18-1-2002. Annexure 4 to the petition under N.S.A.We have perused the grounds of detention copy of which is Annexure 5, which shows that the allegation against the petitioner is that he was involved in cutting electricity wires on several occasions. It seems that the petitioner has a gang for this activity and has spread terror in the locality. Because of this farmers cannot look after their crops in the night and due to lack of electricity the crops are drying up and people are feeling unsafe.2. We are of the opinion that this is a case affecting public order and not merely law and order. Because of electricity thefts on a large scale in our country the Power Corporations are running at huge losses and the economy of the country has been adversely affected. In our opinion there has been no delay in deciding the petitioner's representation as mentioned in para 14 of the counter affidavit. The petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR713]; (2003)ILLJ626All
R.K. Agrawal, J.1. Both these Special Appeals have been filed by U.P. State Bridge Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) against the judgment and order dated May 18, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4043 of 1996 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36071 of 1995, whereby the learned single Judge has allowed these writ petitions filed by the respondents-writ petitioners and declared the order dated January 9, 1996 contained in Annexure 9, order dated October 30, 1995 and November 4, 1995, contained in Annexure Nos. 6 and 6-A to the writ petition, as void ab initio, non-est, and quashed the same. The learned single Judge also held that the respondents-writ petitioners shall be deemed to be in service and be treated as on continuous service with all notional service benefits except however, that they would not be entitled to any payment of arrears for the period during which they did no work actually. Except that each of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(3)AWC1931
B.K. Rathi, J.1. Heard Sri Pankaj Mitthal, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Satya Prakash and Sri A, N. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent.2. The respondent is real brother of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and son of appellant No. 3. He filed a suit for eviction against the appellants alleging that they were licensees. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The first appellate court has dismissed the appeal. Therefore, the present second appeal has been filed.3. It is contended that the licencee cannot be evicted without the order of the District Magistrate as provided in Clause (5) of Section 2A of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972.4. This argument cannot be accepted as there is no plea that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, apply to the premises in dispute. The plea was taken for the first time in the appeal, which was rejected on the ground that there is no allegations that U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972, apply to the premises in dispute. Therefore, this plea cannot be permitted to be raised n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)7; 2003CriLJ1865
ORDERB.K. Rathi, J.1. The first bail application of the applicant was rejected on 8-8-2001. Second bail application of the applicant was rejected on 24-7-2002. This is the third application for bail.2. I have heard Shri Brij Raj Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the AGA.3. The case of prosecution in brief is that two boys were kidnapped and the applicant and other two accused demanded a ransom of Rs. 6 lacs for their return. Accordingly, time and place for payment and return of boys was fixed. The applicant and two other accused reached at the appointed time where they were arrested and the two kidnapped boys were recovered at their, pointing out.4. This bail application has been pressed on the ground that other co-accused of this case Shamshul has already been released by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Imtiyaz by order dated 14-3-20002. That allegation against the applicant are identical and therefore he is entitled to bail on the ground of parity.5. The learned counsel for the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003CriLJ1077
Y.R. Tripathi, J.1. This Government appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13-9-1985 passed by Sri Tirtha Raj, Ilnd Addl. Sessions Judge, Banda in S.T. Nos. 10 and 511 of 1984 whereby the learned trial Court haying given the benefit of doubt to the respondents-accused has acquitted them of the charges under Sections 148, 302, I.P.G. read with Section 149, I.P.C. and 307, I.P.C. read with Section 149, I.P.C.2. The place of occurrence is village Piprahiya, which lies five kms to the south of the Police Station, Pailani.3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 19-8-1982 around 8.00 a.m. deceased-Raj Bahadur Singh accompanied by his mother P.W. 2 Smt. Surswatia was going to the well lying at about 55 paces to the south west of his house to take bath. He was two paces ahead of his mother. When he had settled hardly a distance of 15 paces from his house it is said that the respondent along with one Angad (since absconding) reached there and on the extortion of responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003CriLJ1080
M.C. Jain, J.1. The appellant Waseem was charged under Section 307, I.P.C. but on trial was convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 15 months with a fine of Rs. 500/-. In default of payment of fine, he was 'ordered to undergo further six months rigorous imprisonment. Out of the amount of fine of Rs. 500/- half was directed to be paid to injured Bholu. The judgment was pronounced by Sri G.K. Gupta, the then XIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur in Sessions Trial No. 255 of 1981. Aggrieved, he preferred this appeal.2. The facts lie in a short compass. The injured Bholu PW 1 and his brother Nurul Haq PW 3 resided in house No. 89/140, Ram Chandi Ka Akhara, Anwarganj, Kanpur. Their aunt Mst. Shamsun was living on the upper floor. The appellant used to come to meet the said lady and cut jokes with her. Bholu, injured of the present case used to raise objection on his behaviour, which annoyed him. The incident took place on 23-12-1979 at abo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003CriLJ1115
M.C. Jain, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the State against the judgment and order dated 4-6-1998 passed by Sri R. P. Srivastava, the then IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 171 of 1991, whereby he acquitted the respondents No. l to 5, namely Krishna Pal, Satpal, Dhanpal, Rajesh and Ranbir of the charges under Sections 147 and 302, 1.P.C. read with section 149, I. P. C. for which they were tried.2. The matter involved the murder of two persons, namely Jaipal and his son Devendra aged about 12 years. The murders were allegedly committed by the accused-respondents, after forming unlawful assembly, on 4-11-1988 at about 4 P. M. in village Biharipur, P. S. Baghpat, then forming part of District Meerut. The F. I. R. had been lodged by Raghubir-brother of the deceased Jaipal on the same day at 7.15 P. M. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is about 13 Kms. The informant was not an eye-witness of the incident, but was informed of the same in...
Tag this Judgment!