Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)ESC2026
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a petition for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 22/25/1.2005 and the suspension order of the same date as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.2. The impugned charge-sheet has been served on the petitioner along with the impugned suspension order and the petitioner who was posted in Lucknow office of the competent authority Urban Land Ceiling, has been attached with the office of the Urban Land Ceiling in Saharanpur because the inquiry officer is at Saharanpur.3. A perusal of the impugned charge-sheet goes to show that there are ten charges against the petitioner. The first charge is that the petitioner has been wrongly addressing himself as Assistant Engineer without being promoted from the post of Junior Engineer and he has noted irrelevant words in the attendance register in the column of the employees. The petitioner has sent letters directly to the Government without sending it through proper channel. The nex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)ESC2037
N.K. Mehrotra, J.1. This is a petition for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned charge-sheet dated 22/25.1.2005 as contained in Annexure 9-A to the writ petition and the suspension order of the same date as contained in Annexure 10-A to the writ petition.2. The impugned charge-sheet has been served on the petitioner along with the impugned suspension order and the petitioner who was posted in Lucknow office of the Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling has been attached with the office of the Urban Land Ceiling in Aligarh because the inquiry officer is at Aligarh.The case of the petitioner is that the Additional District Magistrate/ Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling opposite party No. 3 have no jurisdiction to issue the charge-sheet as the power to issue the charge-sheet is vested with the Addl. District Magistrate (Land Acquisition) namely, Shri S.M.A. Rizvi.3. A perusal of the impugned charge-sheet goes to show that there are two charges against the petitioner. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR2005All334; 2006(1)AWC893
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. The petitioner, who was defendant in a suit, aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court 20th December, 2004, whereby the trial Court allowed the objection raised on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent in this writ petition, bearing paper No. 10 Ga, to the effect that though the defendant has put in appearance on 23rd August, 2004, but he has not filed his written statement and more than 90 days have already elapsed but no written statement has been filed. In view of the provisions of Order VIII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court does not have any power to extend or grant further time for filing the written statement, it was therefore prayed by means of the aforesaid objection 10 Ga that Court may now proceed for hearing of the suit. The trial Court accepted the objection filed by the plaintiff-respondent and directed that the suit may come up on 28th January, 2005 for arguments. Aggrieved by the order dated 20th December, 2004, passed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)ESC2253
Ashok Bhushan, J.1. All these writ petitions raise similar questions and have been heard together.2. By these writ petitions, the advertisement dated 1st February, 2005 issued by the Additional Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation advertising 1500 posts of conductor for being filled up has been challenged. In Writ Petition No. 16154 of 2005 counter and supplementary counter affidavits, rejoinder and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged, in some other writ petitions also counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. Writ Petition No. 16154 of 2005 is being treated as leading writ petition and it is sufficient to refer the pleadings in the aforesaid writ petition for deciding the controversy raised in all these writ petitions.3. The petitioners in the above mentioned writ petitions are in two categories. The first category of petitioners are those petitioners who were imparted apprenticeship training under the Apprenticeship Act, 196...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3399
ORDERAnjani Kumar, J.1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 2nd November, 2004, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.2. The brief facts of the present case are that the contesting respondents- landlord filed an application under Section 21(1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972, (herein-in-after referred to as 'the Act') before the prescribed authority for the release of the accommodation in question in favour of the landlord on the ground that the same is bona fide required by the landlord for personal use. The said release application was contested by the petitioner-tenant before the prescribed authority. The prescribed authority after considering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record vide its order dated 30th April, 2004 have allowed the release application filed by the contesting respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3401
Anjani Kumar, J.1. By means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners challenge the order dated 24th May, 1999, passed by the prescribed authority and the order dated 23rd August, 2003, passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972, whereby the appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners-tenant against the order passed by the prescribed authority by which the prescribed authority has allowed the release application filed by the respondent-landlady, copies whereof are annexed as Annexure Nos. 'V' and 'VI', respectively, to the writ petition.2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent-landlady filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), before the prescribed authority against the petitioners, who are the tenant of the accommodation in question for the release of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : IV(2005)BC268
Devi Prasad Singh, J.1. M/s. Vishwa Polly Processors Pvt. Ltd. (in short hereinafter referred as the Company) was granted Cash Credit Hypothetication Limit (in short CC Limit) by the State Bank of India, Cantt. Branch, Kanpur for utilisation of fund during business transaction. When the said company failed to pay the dues, respondents' Bank sent a demand notice for the payment of dues but it could not be liquidated by the company. Feeling aggrieved a regular suit bearing No. 331 of 1997 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 29,89,578 plus interest. On promulgation of Recovery of Debt Dues to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short hereinafter referred as the Act), the suit was transferred to Debt recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, then to Allahabad.2. By judgment and order dated 6th September, 2002 the suit was decreed in favour of State Bank of India, Cantt. Branch, Kanpur for an amount of Rs. 29,89,578/-. In consequence thereof, a recovery certificate No. 299 dated 6.9.2002 w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2006(1)AWC729
A.K. Yog and B.B. Agarwal, JJ.1. Heard Counsels representing the petitioner and the contesting-respondent Nos. 1 to 4.2. Respondent No. 5/Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad through its Registrar, is a redundant non-contesting respondent. No notice need be given to said respondent.3. Considering the nature of the case, we proceed to decide this petition finally at the admission stage itself as contemplated under Chapter XXII Rule 2(1), 11 proviso of Rules of Court, 1952. The issue of jurisdiction (as primarily issue) is to be adjudicated on the basis of undisputed facts on record.4. In brief, the facts are that Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Northern Railway, Gorakhpur, issued advertisement No. 1/2000 in newspaper, original paper clipping of 'Dainik Jagran' dated 30.8.2000 placed before us for perusal. This advertisement shows that there are 25 posts of Inspector/Abhiyojan-Grade 11. It provided that application should be sent to Chief Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3259
S.K. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri H.N. Shukla, learned Advocate who appeared in support of this writ petition and learned Standing Counsel.2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated. 17.2.2005 (Annexure-31 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1 /Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad. There is further prayer that respondent No. 1 be directed not to proceed with the application (Annexure-27 to the writ petition) and proceedings on that application be dropped.3. Before I proceed to deal with the matter this has to come on the record that learned Advocate argued the matter for more than an hour inspite of indication that matter in issue is not such for which argument may stretch for such a long span. This was only with the purpose that we are already overburdened with large number of cases arising out of final order passed by the courts below which are pending since years and years and therefore, learned advocates are also to take care and they...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3391
Krishna Murari, J.1. Heard Sri S.L. Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Prem Babu Verma appearing for the respondents.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the consolidation operation the petitioner filed objection under Section 9 -A (2) of the Act claiming bhumidhari rights over the land in dispute on the basis of registered sale deed dated 9.6.1972 alleged to have been executed by Smt. Ram Pyari the recorded tenure holder in his favour. The respondent No. 3 also filed objection claiming rights as legal heirs of smt. Ram Pyari.3. Smt. Ram Pyari who was recorded as sirdar over the land in dispute made an application on 9.6.1972 under Section 134 of the Act for grant of bhumidhari sanad and deposited ten times of the land revenue on the same day as required by the said Section. She also executed a registered sale deed in favour of petitioner on the same date i.e. 9.6.1972. Smt Ram Pyari died on 17.6.1972 whereas bhumidhari sanad was granted on 24.6.1972.4....
Tag this Judgment!