Allahabad Court February 2003 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.
Raies Alias Yogendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ3155
U.S. Tripathi, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging his detention order dated 26-7-2002 passed by District Magistrate, Jhansi, respondent No. 2, under Section 3(2) of National Security Act.2. The grounds of detention served on the petitioner along with detention order (Annexure S.A.-1 to the supplementary affidavit) disclosed that on the night of 4/5-6-2002 at about 12.30 a.m. 10-12 armed persons of Dhan Singh gang with which the petitioner was associated, came to the site of contractor Jagdish Rai. Driver Sonu, Cashier Sanjai and Foreman Laxmi were sleeping. The persons of the gang enquired from Chaukidar Sitaram as to who were residing there and slapped him. They also looted cash of Rs. 10,000/- by breaking open the almirah, the money of the workers and their clothes. They also kidnapped Sanjai, and Gopi Cashier and worker respectively for purposes of ransom. The persons of the gang also removed air of the wheels of the jeep and also took away its key saying ...
Sarita Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1108
Anjani Kumar, J. 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, Sarita Saxena (Smt.), against the order impugned in the present writ petition, namely, the order dated 16th October, 2002, whereby the petitioner, Sarita Saxena (Smt.), who is working as Woman Basic Health Worker in Primary Health Centre, P.P.C., Mahila Chikitsalaya, Bareilly has been transferred.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought my attention to the recital in the impugned order, a copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the writ petition which reads as under :^^ekuuh; jkT; ea=h isVksfy;e ,oaizkfrd xSl vkSj lalnh; dk;Z] Hkkjr ljdkj 'kkL=h Hkou] ubZ fnYyh ds i= fnukd5-10-2002 esa fn;s x;s funsZ'kksZ ds vuqikyu esa vkns'k la[;k 560@2002&03 fnukd 11-7-2002 ftlds }kjk Jherh jUtuk lDlsuk] LokLF; dk;Zd=h ih- ih- lh-efgyk fpfdRlky;] cjsyh dks Lohr in ls vf/kd dk;Zjr n'kkZrs gq, lek;kstuizkFkfed LokLF; dsUnz jkeuxj tuin cjsyh eas fjDr dk;Zd=h efgyk ds in ijLFkkukUrfjr fd;k x...
Smt. Kanti Srivastava Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1101; [2003(97)FLR245]
S.N. Srivastava, J.1. Petitioner, widow of late Ashok Kumar Srivastava, who was serving as Assistant Manager in the State Bank of India and was at the relevant time, posted at Pratapgarh, has preferred this petition for the relief of quashing the impugned order contained in the communication dated 12.7.2001 and also for the relief of mandamus to therespondents to employ the petitioner in Class III service of the State Bank of India.2. The brief facts, which bear on the controversy involved in this petition are that the husband of the petitioner, namely, Ashok Kumar Srivastava, who held the post of Assistant Manager in the Bank was, at the relevant time, posted at Pratapgarh met with a road accident and succumbed to his injuries on 26.12.1999. The deceased was survived by his widow and three daughters. It is stated that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in Class 3 cadre commensurate to her educational qualification. The application moved for compassionate appointment ...
Yar Mohammad Vs. Commissioner, Devi Pattan Mandal and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1657; [2003(97)FLR674]
U.K. Dhaon, J.1. Heard Sri B.M. Sahai, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.B. Pandey, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties.2. The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 6.6.2001 passed by the Deputy Collector by which the petitioner was removed from service,3. The brief facts of the case are that by the order dated 18.1.2001, the petitioner was placed under suspension and thereafter the charge-sheet dated 27.3,2001 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to submit his reply to the charge-sheet but no reply was submitted by the petitioner and thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 18.5.2001 and on the basis of the enquiry report dated 18.5.2001, a show cause notice dated 19.5.2001 was issued to the petitioner and thereafter by the impugned order dated 6.6.2001, the petitioner was removed from service. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits ...
Udai Raj Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1876
R.H. Zaidi, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. 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 22.4.1982 passed by respondent No. 3 and the order dated 28.7.1987 passed by respondent No, 2.3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition, in brief, are that a notice under Section 10 (2) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, for short 'the Act' was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why an area measuring 6 bighas 7 biswas 10 biswansis land out of his holding be not declared as surplus. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner filed an objection that no land out of his holding was liable to be declared as surplus inasmuch as the entire land was either un-irrigated or grove but the same was wrongly treated in the aforesaid notice as irrigated. Parties produced evidence in support o...
Daljeet Singh Vs. Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham and anr.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: 2003(3)AWC1878
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 25.10.2002 passed by Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Mandal. Banda and the order dated 12.6.2001 passed by Collector, Mahoba. Petitioner is a holder of mining lease. In pursuance of the mining lease, he has excavated and removed mineral in accordance with U. P. Minor Minerals (Concession) Rules, 1963. Petitioner's case is that till month of March, 2001, the royalty was Rs. 20 per cubic metre and from 1.4.2001, it was enhanced from Rs. 20 to 30 per cubic metre.3. The Collector, Mahoba, issued an order dated 12.6.2001 directing the petitioner to deposit difference of royalty on user of Form MM-11 from 12.4.2001 to 30.4.2001. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which too has been rejected by Commissioner. Against these two orders, the present writ petition has been filed.4. The counsel for the petitioner c...
Kaleem Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-14-2003
Reported in: 2003CriLJ2685
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-detenu Kaleem has impugned the order dated 31-7-2002 passed by the third opposite party Mr. Alok Kumar, District Magistrate, Faizabad detaining him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act.The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 31-7-2002, was served on the petitioner-detenu on 31-7-2002 itself and their true copies have been filed as Annexures 1 and 3 respectively to the writ petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the petitioner-detenu prompting the third opposite party to issue impugned detention order against him are contained in Annexure-3 (grounds of detention), A perusal of Annexure-3 would show that the impugned order is founded on a solitary C. R., namely, C.R. No. 320 of 2002, under Sections 147, 323. 342, 452, 376, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (1) of the U.P. Gangster Act of police station Cantt. District Faizabad, registe...
Mukesh Kumar Vs. Regional Transport Authority
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1106
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the respondent R.T.A., Ghaziabad be directed not to grant or issue any permit on the route Khurja-Shikarpur Jahangirabad and allied route.2. The aforesaid route falls exclusively with the jurisdiction of the R.T.A., Ghaziabad.3. The petitioner is an operator on the said route and obviously, he does not want others to be granted a permit on the said route. In this connection, it may be noted that under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 strength of the route could be fixed by the R.T.A. This concept of strength has been deliberately omitted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and now there is no concept of strength. It is obvious that the intention of omitting any provision analogous to Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was that there should be competition because under the old Act, the existing operators would obstruct grant of permits on their routes on the basis of...
Anil Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, L.i.C. of India and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1113; [2003(97)FLR725]; (2003)IIILLJ108All; (2003)2UPLBEC1017
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 27.12.1999 passed by the respondent No. 2 and the order dated 17.12.1996 passed by the respondent No. 3 Annexures-14 and 11 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner as Development Officer with back wages in the service of the Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the L.I.C.').2. The petitioner was appointed as Apprentice Development Officer in the service of the L.I.C. vide letter dated 17.6.1992 Annexure-2 to the writ petition and he was confirmed vide order dated 5.7.1993 Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Since then, the petitioner has been working as Development Officer in Kanpur. It is alleged in paragraph 11 of the writpetition that since March 1996, the petitioner was not given salary. On 6.11.1996, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner vide Annexure-9 to the writ pet...
Dilip Kumar Upadhyay and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-13-2003
Reported in: 2003(2)AWC1115
M. Katju, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed against the Impugned order of the U. P. State Public Service Tribunal dated 27.3.2002 Annexure-1 to the writ petition and for quashing the orders dated 13.4.2001 and 3.8.2001 by which the petitioners have been promoted to the post of Head Constables in the armed police. The petitioners have also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioners as Head Constables in civil police.2. The petitioners were appointed as Constables in civil police in 1993. It is alleged in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that although the petitioners were inducted in the civil police, the D.I.G., Police Allahabad in exercise of powers under Regulation 525 of the Police Regulations had transferred the entire 1993 batch of constables recruited in Allahabad to the armed police in 1997. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition, it is stated that the State Government constituted a Special Task Force in Allahabad in 1998 and the petitioners wer...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »