Allahabad Court January 2010 Judgments

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jai Deo Singh and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(2)AWC1348

Devi Prasad Singh and S.C. Chaurasia, JJ.1. Heard Shri R.C. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajendra Jaiswal, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant respondents.2. In brief, the deceased Pradeep Kumar Singh alias Deepu Singh while going from Unnao to Bahurajmau along with one Manoj Singh suffered with an accident on 25.11.2000 at about 10.30 a.m. with Jeep No. UP 35-A/7510. It has been stated that the driver of the jeep was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and in consequence thereof, the accident occurred. In the said accident, the pillion rider of the motorcycle suffered with grievous injuries and later on Pradeep Kumar Singh alias Deepu Singh succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was aged about 20 years and was a student of B.Com. The monthly income has been stated to the tune of Rs. 3,000 per month. A first information report was lodged and the dependents of the deceased approached the Tribunal for payment of compensation for an amount of Rs. 7,55,0...

Bhola Nath Nai Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(2)AWC2086

ORDERAmreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent-State.2. The petitioner claims that he may be promoted on a class III post as he has been working as a Cook/Follower for the past 28 years under the Rules of promotion.3. Learned Counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner cannot be promoted as a class III employee. As a matter of fact his next higher post of promotion is at of Head Cook/Follower. For this reliance has been placed on the Uttar Pradesh Police Group 'D' Employees Service Rules, 2009, dated 28.9.2009. Rule 20 thereof prescribes the mode of promotion to the next higher post where an employee can be considered for promotion after completion of 16 years of satisfactory service. The promotion has to be made within the same establishment from amongst the eligible candidates through selection by a Selection Committee.4. The fact that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1983 indicat...

Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University Vs. Smt. Sandhya and anr.

Court: Allahabad

1. All these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 16.7.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 373 of 2005 and Writ Petition No. 5208 of 2005.2. In view of the order, which we propose to pass in these appeals, we do not consider it expedient to give in detail the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 herein, filed the writ application, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') to declare the result of the writ petitioner's B.Ed. Examination of 2004 and thereafter to issue fresh mark-sheet to her. The writ application came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 21.11.2005, and he dismissed the writ application with cost. While dismissing the writ application, he observed as follows:Accordingly, the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition are similar...

Smt. Sangeeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(2)AWC1941

ORDERAmreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, and learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Anuj Kumar, who has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 4.2. The petitioner's candidature has been rejected on the ground that she is the daughter-in-law of a Member of the Gram Panchayat namely Om Shanker and, therefore, she is disqualified from being appointed as Gram Rozgar Sewak in terms of the relevant Government order that is applicable to the petitioner. There is no dispute about the aforesaid proposition that in the event on the date when the petitioner applied was the daughter-in-law of a sitting Member of Gram Panchayat then she would be disqualified.3. The dispute in the present case is that the petitioner applied on 28.3.2008 and she contended that her father-in-law, who was a Member of Gram Panchayat, had already resigned a day earlier on 27.3.2008. For this, the petitioner relied on the resignation letter of her father-in-law w...

Amit Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010CriLJ1943

ORDERPoonam Srivastav, J.1. Heard Sri Mukhtar Alam, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged which are on record.3. The argument of learned Counsel for the revisionist is that under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Inspectors are only empowered to inspect the premises which deals in manufacture and sale of drugs or cosmetic by a licence holder. This is not disputed. The procedure to be adopted by the Inspector is provided in Section 23 of the said Act. It is specifically and unequivocally submitted by learned Counsel that there is no provision under the Act to enter into premises and effect seizure.4. Section 22 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 provides powers of Inspectors which is quoted below:22. Powers of Inspectors- (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 23 and of any rules made by the Central Government in this behalf, an Inspector may, within the local limits of the area for which he is a...

Dr. Kalp Nath Chaubey Vs. Information Commissioner, Central Informatio ...

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(2)AWC2087(1)

Ashok Bhushan and Virendra Singh, JJ.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.B. Singhal, Senior Advocate, Assistant Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri R.R. Khan for respondent No. 1 and Sri S.K. Singh appearing for respondent No. 4.2. The contesting parties are represented by their Counsels. No notice has been issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are only proforma parties. Looking to the nature of issues raised in this writ petition, with the consent of parties, we proceed to dispose of the writ petition finally.3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 16th December, 2009 by which penalty of Rs. 25,000 has been imposed upon the petitioner as deemed Public Information Officer/Principal under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.4. The petitioner's case in the writ petition is that petitioner was working as Principal, Satish Chandra Degree College, Ballia from March, 2009 to 8th May, 2009 and was also given charge of Co...

Kamal Ji Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2010(3)AWC2524

Rajes Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Yash Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri A. C. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. In the present case, the petitioners are seeking the following reliefs:(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.9.2009, passed by the respondent No. 2;(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.9.2009 to the extent Rs. 3,000 as weekly advance entertainment tax has been ordered to be paid;(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents No. 2 and 3 not to compel to the petitioners to pay weekly advance entertainment tax of Rs. 3,000 and the respondents No. 2 and 3 may be directed to accept a sum of Rs. 1,500 as weekly advance entertainment tax and the respondents No. 2 and 3 may be further directed not to interfere in the running of the temporary video cinema halls of the petitioners situate in quasba Ch...