Chhattisgarh Court April 2008 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.
Aghnuram Nishad and ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: 2008(3)MPHT1(CG)
ORDERDhirendra Mishra, J.1. With the consent of the parties, the matter was heard finally.2. The petitioners by the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have impugned the order of Annexure P-6 dated 14-12-2007 passed by Upper Collector, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur whereby the reference under Section 21(4) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for brevity 'the Act of 1993') filed by the respondent No. 6, Sarpanch, has been allowed and the resolution of 'No Confidence Motion' dated 27-8-2007 passed in the meeting of Gram Panchayat Bhawanipur, has been set aside.3. The undisputed facts are that the respondent No. 6 is elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Bhawanipur. The 'No Confidence Motion' was submitted against her by twelve members of the Panchayat before the Prescribed Authority, i.e., Sub-Divisional Officer, Baloda Bazar, respondent No. 4 herein, on 6-8-2007. The matter was posted on 13th August, 2007 and on that date it was directed to convene a meeting of ...
Naresh Giri Goswami Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and ors.
Court: Chhattisgarh
Decided on: Apr-02-2008
Reported in: [2008(119)FLR434]; (2009)ILLJ797CG
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.1. By this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:(i) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned order dated January 31, 2003 and kindly direct the respondent No. 1 to take back the petitioner in service.(ii) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ as the principle of natural justice is violated by not giving reasonable opportunity of hearing on merits of the case.(iii) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any other writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions deemed fit in the interest of justice.2. The facts as averred in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed on July 7, 1982 and worked as fitter upto January 18, 1985. Thereafter, the petitioner was terminated from the service without any show-cause-notice 1 by oral order. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner made representations dated March 22, 1985, Novemb...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›