Chhattisgarh Court June 2012 Judgments

Ashwini Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Court: Chhattisgarh

ORDER (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India) 1. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks a writ/direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, the father of the petitioner namely Late Shri Dashrath Sahu, died on 01.02.1997 in harness, working as Roller Driver in Public Works Department. According to the petitioner, the petitioner, made an application on 20.05.1999 and thereafter, on having attained majority on 21.07.2001, one more application was filed. 3. The State Government by order dated 26.07.2007 (Annexure P-7) rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that under the policy memo dated 30.04.2006, the dependents of the employees of the, then, State of Madhya Pradesh, who had died on or after 01.11.1997 alone are eligible to make application for appointment for compassionate appointment. Since the petitioner's father died much before 01.11.1997, the petitioner is not entitled...

Kamlesh Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Court: Chhattisgarh

ORDER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 2 and 3 to accept the candidature of the petitioner ignoring/relaxing the condition No. 3 of the advertisement for the post of Ophthalmic Assistant, as Other Backward Class category. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that advertisements dated 04.05.2012 (Annexure P/12) and 29.04.2012 (Annexure P/13) were issued by the respondent No. 2 and 3, respectively inviting applications for, inter alia, post of Ophthalmic Assistant. The last date of making application in the aforesaid advertisements were 30.05.2012 and 18.05.2012, respectively. The essential requirement for the post of Ophthalmic Assistant under the advertisement dated 29.04.2012 are that (i) the candidate should have passed class 12th under the 10+2 education system with Physics, Chemistry and Biology or must have passed B.S.C. first year, (ii) should have passed ...

Commissioner Customs and Central Excise Central Raipur Chhattisgarh Vs ...

Court: Chhattisgarh

ORDER FORM OF APPLICATION TO THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 35-H(1) OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944. Abhay Manohar Sapre, J:- 1. This is an application made under Section 35 -(H)(1) of the Central Excise Act by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Revenue) against the order dated 23.5.2000 bearing No. A/930/00-NB(SM) passed by Central Excise Tribunal (for short hereinafter called for brevity – the Tribunal ) in appeal No. E/633/2000-NB (S) praying for referring to this Court the questions of law proposed in the application as questions of law arising out of the aforementioned order of the Tribunal. 2. By impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's (revenue's) appeal and confirmed the order passed by the commissioner of appeal dated 6.9.99. 3. So the short question that arises for consideration in this application is whether any referable question of law arises out of the impugned order for being answered by this Court on its merit in its reference jurisdiction and if so w...

Rishi Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Court: Chhattisgarh

ORDER (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to conduct selection process in accordance with the University Grants Commission regulations eligibility criteria by prescribing the age limit as 51 years. A direction is further sought that the benefit of relaxation of age granted to the Shiksha Karmis vide circular dated 02.06.2004 of the General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, be extended to the Assistant Professors also, who were engaged earlier on  contract basis, since 1993 onwards. 2. The facts, in brief, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.05.2009 (Annexure P/1), issued by the respondent No. 2, wherein the last date for filing application was indicated as 22.06.2009, the petitioner made an application for selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Professor. The petitioner participated in the written examination conducted on 29.11...

Satyanarayan Mishra Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Court: Chhattisgarh

ORDER WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 07.11.2009 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner, working as Sub Inspector at District Bilaspur, was transferred to District Narayanpur, on administrative grounds, and further, the charge-sheet dated 03.09.2011 (Annexure P/12) where it has been alleged that even after being relieved from his present place of posting, the petitioner did not join his transferred post and thus, had shown disobedience of the orders of the superior authority, by not joining the transferred place which is a naxalite affected, the petitioner has shown cowardice and has disobeyed the orders of the superior authority, even after sending of several notices. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that earlier, vide order dated 04.06.2009, the petitioner was transferred from Bilaspur to Narayanpur. The petitioner preferred a representation on 09.06.2009 to the Director General ...

Rupendra Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Court: Chhattisgarh

ORDER Writ Appeal under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1.  Heard. 2. This is an appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P. No.4904 of 2004 under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act 2006 against order dated 13.03.2012 passed in aforementioned writ petition. 3. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition and  declined to grant any relief claimed in the writ petition. 4. Without much going into the factual aspects of the case, and suffice it to say, the appellant (writ petitioner) claimed that he should be appointed on the post of "Shiksha Karmi" and the order by which respondent No.6 was appointed be quashed. The impugned order appointing respondent  No.6 was passed in the year 1998, whereas, the writ petitioner filed the writ petition, out of which, this appeal arises in the year 2004. 5. So the question that arises for ...

Bali Ram Sahu and Others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Court: Chhattisgarh

Reported in: 2012(3)LLN226

ORDER WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 SUB-SECTION (1) OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURTS (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006. Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the writ petitioners of W.P. (S) No. 2135 of 2012 under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 against the order dated 6/6/2012 passed in aforementioned writ petition. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellants   with certain liberty. 3. So the question, which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned Singh Judge was justified in disposing of the appellant's writ petition? 4. Facts of the case are short:- 5. The appellants (writ petitioners) are Revenue Inspectors working as such in State Services as their  substantive post in State Services. It appears from the record of the case and is not disputed that these appellants (writ petitioners) were given additional charge of the p...

Channu Lal Patel Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Court: Chhattisgarh

ORDER (Writ Petition under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India) 1. Challenge  in this petition is to the  order  dated 26.10.2006 (Annexure P-6), passed by the Dy. Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, whereby, the appointment of the petitioner Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat- Parasbod was  cancelled and the order dated 25.03.2008 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Collector, Rajnandgaon, whereby, the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.10.2006, was dismissed, confirming the order passed by the Dy. Director, Panchayat and Social Welfare, Rajnandgaon. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Panchayat Karmi, thereafter by order dated 18.06.1997 (Annexure P-2), he was appointed as Panchayat Secretary under provisions of Section 69(1) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short "the Adhiniyam"). According to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Secretary was ...

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2 1 Raipur, Vs. Shriram Dh ...

Court: Chhattisgarh

ORDER INCOME TAX APPEAL UNDER SECTION 260A OF INCOME TAX ACT,1961 Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, against the order dated 7/12/2005 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short called the Tribunal) in IT (SS) A No. 76/Nag/2004. 2. By impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed that of the Revenue which arose out of the order passed by the CIT (appeal). 3. So the question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Tribunal was justified in allowing assessee's appeal and was justified in dismissing Revenue's appeal.? and secondly and more importantly that being the sin qua none for hearing the appeal, whether the appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 260-A of the Act. 4. Few facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal need mention infra. 5. A search and seizure operation was carried out under ...