Court : Chhattisgarh
1. These writ petitions have been heard on different dates, however, since all the writ petitions involve common issue and common question of law, therefore, they are being considered and decided by this common order. 2. In this batch of writ petitions the petitioners have called in question the constitution/reconstitution of their respective Gram Panchayat; change of headquarters of Gram Panchayat; amalgamation or alteration of respective Panchayat area on the ground that such action/steps have been taken in contravention of the guidelines issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development; notification has not been issued in the manner required under Section 125 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam') and that Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Alteration of Limits, Disestablishment or Change of Headquarters) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules, 1994') have been violated. 3. The constitution, amalgamation, al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. These writ petitions have been heard on different dates, however, since all the writ petitions involve common issue and common question of law, therefore, they are being considered and decided by this common order. 2. In this batch of writ petitions the petitioners have called in question the constitution/reconstitution of their respective Gram Panchayat; change of headquarters of Gram Panchayat; amalgamation or alteration of respective Panchayat area on the ground that such action/steps have been taken in contravention of the guidelines issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Panchayat and Rural Development; notification has not been issued in the manner required under Section 125 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam') and that Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat (Alteration of Limits, Disestablishment or Change of Headquarters) Rules, 1994 (for short 'the Rules, 1994') have been violated. 3. The constitution, amalgamation, al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Oral Order: 1. The petitioner has called in question the impugned order passed by the Collector, District Kondagaon, deciding the petitioner's application for removal of encroachment from kabrastan, stating the same to be a waqf property. 2. After making enquiry and hearing the parties, the Collector, Kondagaon, has concluded that the subject land bearing khasra No.823 area 2.33 acres situated at village Vishrampuri, Keshkal, District Kondagaon, is Government forest land, having been entered in the revenue record as 'Chhote Jhad Ke Jungle'. The Collector has recorded the findings by a detailed order running into 14 pages. It has considered the submission and evidence put forth by the petitioner as well as the enquiry report received from Tahsildar, Vishrampuri. 3. When confronted with the query as to why petitioner cannot move civil suit to establish its title over the land, learned counsel would submit that the remedy is to decide the dispute under Section 6 of the Waqf Act, 1995 (for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Oral Order: 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking following reliefs : PRAYER Hence it is kind prayer before this Hon'ble High Court to directly pass an appropriate order as per Eligibility to arrest Mr. Narendra Modi and Mr. Amit Shah, and proper investigation shall be done for the other offender also. AND Kindly take necessary action to restrict/bann the all activities of BJP and its mother organization RSS permanently. 2. Pleadings with respect to the facts taken to be the cause of action for filing the writ petition have been mentioned in paras 1 to 3 of the writ petition, which reads as under : 1. That due to very guilty this is the complaint that on 21st August 2014 which published on 22-08-2014 as Annexure P-1, when Mr. Narendra Modi came to Ranchi, at that time during Public meeting, when the Chief Minister of Jharkhand Mr. Hemant Soren was speaking about the problem of Jharkhand, that time the supporters of Mr. Narendra Modi started hooting and instead to stop ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. The short question requires to be adjudicated in the present bail application is whether the applicants, who have been made accused of an offence punishable under the provision of Section 3 (1)(x) [amended as 3 (1)(r)] of the Act, 1989, are entitled for anticipatory bail, in view of the bar engrafted under Section 18 of the Act, 1989? 2. The applicants have preferred this bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 78 of 2014, registered in Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur, Chhattisgasrh of offence punishable under Sections 294, 506, 323, 341, 342 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) [amended as 3(1)(r)] of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act, 1989) for releasing them on anticipatory bail. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the dispute between complainant Anuj Tirki and the applicants Umesh Prasad @ Nandev, Kamesh Prasad,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Oral Order: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. Petitioner has called in question the order dated 20-8-2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Saja, District Bemetara, suspending him under the provisions of Section 39 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 1993'). 2. It has been argued that the impugned order is palpably illegal and is contrary to the statutory scheme provided under Sections 39 and 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993 inasmuch as an office bearer of a panchayat is suspended on occurrence of contingencies as provided under clauses (a) (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 39, when the criminal charge as mentioned therein or proceeding for his removal from his office is initiated and, therefore, before his suspension he should be issued a show cause notice along with a charge sheet under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1993. 3. In the case in hand, the petitioner has not been suspended on account of registration of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 19.5.1998 (Annexure-P/22) passed by the Chairman of erstwhile Bilaspur Development Authority (for short 'BDA'), the predecessor in interest of Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, dismissing the petitioner from service as also directing recovery of the defalcated amount. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as daily wager 'LDC' on 19.9.1984 by an order passed by the CEO (BDA). In due course, the petitioner was regularly appointed by order dated 4.3.1989 in the cadre of Class-III employee of the BDA. On 1.7.1995, the petitioner was transferred to the recovery cell of BDA. On 4.10.1995, an FIR was lodged by the cashier of BDA to the effect that when he opened the office at 10.30 am, he found that smoke was emanating from Almirah No.11. On opening the Almirah, it was found that some receipt books were burning, which were doused with the help of other employees. A charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on 22.11.1995 by the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Oral Order: Invoking jurisdiction of this court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the applicant herein has filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail as he is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.113/2014 registered at Police Station, Urla, District Raipur, for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. 2. The aforesaid bail application has been admitted for final hearing on 09.09.2014. 3. Appearing for the State, Ms. Madhunisha singh, at the outset, would submit that offence registered against the applicant is only under Section 363 of IPC which is bailable offence, and therefore, provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. would not be attracted and application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable in law. 4. Replying the above submission, Shri Hemant Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that though the offence under Section 363 IPC is bailable one, but the Sessions Judge, while rejecting the bail application has made some obs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
Oral Order: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. On petitioner's complaint, proceedings under Section 41 A of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1960 was initiated against respondent No.5, the President of Municipal Council, Mahasamund. At the end of enquiry, the competent authority found that the first charge; regarding engagement of excess number of Tractors without seeking approval of the Municipal/president in council has not been proved against respondent No.5 because for the said charge the concerned Chief Municipal Officer has already been punished. With respect to the second charge; also, it was mentioned that the issue of splitting of minor works each of Rs.1 Lakh has been done by the concerned Chief Municipal Officer and not by the President. In so far as the third charge; is concerned, the President was found guilty of consuming more quantity of diesel than the prescribed limit of 80liters per month, however, the competent authority found that the said charge is not o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chhattisgarh
1. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor, Botany, by the State of Madhya Pradesh on 04.03.1987 and he was awarded with Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D) in the subject of Botany on 04.01.1997 for which he was granted two advance increments in terms of clause 6.4.0 of UGC notification and Regulation On Revision Of Pay Scales, Minimum Qualification For Appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges and other Measures for Maintenance of Standards, 1998, duly accepted by the State of Madhya Pradesh vide Annexure P/5 dated 11.10.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted selection grade w.e.f. 05.01.1999. He claimed that he is entitled for two advance increments from the date of being placed in selection grade i.e. 05.01.1999 in accordance with clause 6.3.0 and 6.4.0 of the Govt. order (Annexure P/5), but the same was not granted to him in the light of order dated 03.09.2003 (Annexure P/8) passed by the respondent No.2/Director, Higher Education. 2. The...
Tag this Judgment!