Jharkhand Court March 2002 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.
Narsingh Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-12-2002
Reported in: [2006(4)JCR89(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ petition was preferred by petitioner on 28.6.2000 before the Patna High Court at Patna after service of copy on the counsel for the State (Mr. A.P. Jittu. S.C. II). This case has been transferred before this Court by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Patna High Court under Section 89 of Bihar Re-organisation Act, 2000 after notice to the parties. Till date, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State or any other respondents.2. As the case can be disposed of on a short point, in view of allegation as shown in the charge-sheet, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts or to grant further adjournment.3. The petitioner, who was a head clerk in the office of Civil Surgeon, Sahibganj, was asked certain explanation by Memo dated 12.9.1995 relating to certain appointments as were made by the then Civil Surgeon, Dr. Pankaj Kumar. The petitioner replied on 9.10.1995 and giving reference to Rule 167(B) of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Ru...
Mohini Ranjan Mishra and ors. Etc. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR939; [2002(94)FLR262]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In all the three writ petitions, as common relief has been sought for they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. All the petitioners were working on daily wage under the Minor Irrigation Department of the State. They are posted in the Minor Irrigation Division at Kodarma. All of them claimed to have been working for the last 20 years on daily wage and claimed wages for the period from 11th March. 1997 to 31st July. 1999. It is stated that the petitioners have been paid wages prior to 11th March. 1997 and are also getting wages after 31st July. 1999 but the wages for the aforesaid period have not been paid, though they have worked. 3. Further prayer has been made to direct the Respondents to pay the petitioners the wages in the regular scale and other allowances as is payable to a regular employee. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed in each of the Case, wherein the Executive Engineer. Minor Irrigation Division. Hazaribag ...
Smt. Snehlata Sinha Vs. the Ranchi University and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: [2004(2)JCR607(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. Heard the parties.2. In the present case, the petitioner has challenged, the date of confirmation of respondent No. 5 as lecturer as notified vide Notification No. B/5620-25/96 dated 13.1.1996.3. The only issue raised by the petitioner is that a person cannot be confirmed made permanent from a date prior to his/her regular appointment.4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, Smt. Snehlata Sinha was appointed as lecturer of psychology, in Jamshedpur Women's College, Jamshedpur after following the procedure including recommendation of University Service Commission vide College letter dated 27.9.1972 with the following terms and conditions :'(1) Your appointment is on the basis of the recommendation of University Service Commission vide letter No. 62/c/USC, dated 14.2.1970, from the ' Secretary USC Patna. You will be on probation for one year effective from the date of joining.(2) Your pay will be as follows :--Rs. 400-Basic.25% the basic salary as allowan...
Akhileshwar Narayan Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1272
ORDERD.N. Prasad, J.1. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the order dated 27.10.1998 taking cognizance against the petitioner under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Palamau at Daltonganj in Mohammadganj P.S. case No. 12 of 1989, corresponding to G.R. No. 607 of 1989.2. It appears that the petitioner had earlier moved this Hon'ble Court for quashing the entire Criminal Proceeding including the order dated 24.3.1995 by which the cognizance was taken and by order dated 25.4.1997 this Court after setting aside the order taking cognizance remitted the case back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Palamau at Daltonganj with observation that he will examine the complainant on solemn affirmation and then proceed with the case and if he satisfied that there is material for taking cognizance, he will proceed in the matter accordingly.3. Short facts giving rise to this application as alleged...
Suresh Nayak Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2841
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J.1. This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order contained in Annexure-2 to this application dated 1.9.2001 by which, the Deputy Secretary to the Government, in exercise of the power under Section 22(1)(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, has directed the detention of the petitioner in jail till 20.7.2002.2. The petitioner was remanded in jail in Bagodar P.S. Case No. 159/1999 under Section 414. IPC in which he was granted bail by the Court below and he was also implicated in Hazaribagh (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 323/1999 in which he was granted bail by this Court. Subsequently, it is alleged that he was implicated as an accused in another case hut in all those cases he was granted bail, but to defeat the judicial orders, the Deputy Secretary, vide, order dated 16.7.2001 passed an order for his detention under the aforesaid Act for three months confirming the order of the District Magistra...
Achhe Lal Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: 2002(50)BLJR1030
ORDERTapan Sen, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Allam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, and also Mr. P. Modi, learned G.P.-1 for the State of Jharkhand and with their consent, this Writ Petition is being disposed off at this stage itself.2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the very outset, prayed permission to make corrections of some typographical errors which have inadvertently crept in at page-3 of the Writ Petition.Permission is granted to him. Let him do so.3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has made a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ/order including a Writ of Certiorari for quashing the Notification No. 6096(S) dated 06.09.2001 issued by the State of Bihar (Respondent No. 2) whereby and whereunder he has been inflicted with punishments as recorded in Annexure-5. The punishments which have been recorded are :1. Stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. 2. Except suspension allowance, he would no...
Jagdamba Coke Manufacturing Enterprises and anr. Vs. State of Jharkhan ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: [2003(96)FLR771]
ORDERLakshman Uraon, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner was not given notice for verification of Weights and Measures. It was also submitted that even if the allegation made in the prosecution report are taken to be correct and also it is found that the date for reverification expired on 31.3.2000* and just one month before the date of inspection as last verification was done on 18.2.1999*.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred Section 47 of the Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act. which provides penalty upto fine of Rs. 500/- and for the second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year and also with fine.4. As the petitioners were not given proper notice for verification of weights and measures and they have been prosecuted under Section 47 of the said Act, this application is allowed a id order taking cognizancedated 30.1.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial...
Dayawanti KarmakarIn Vs. State and anr.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ1903
ORDERD.N. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 15.5.2001 passed by Judicial Magistrate. Rajmahal in Cr. Misc. No. 1/86, by which the prayer for issuance of a direction to D.R.M. Malda for payment of petitioner's due against the Opposite Party No. 2 has been rejected.2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the application filed under Section 125. Cr C for maintenance to the petitioner was already disposed of as back as on 26.3.1990 in terms of compromise entered into between both parties and this order i.e. 15.5.2001 is quite illegal in view of the aforesaid order passed in terms of the compromise.3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 contended that there was a direction also in Cr. Rev. No. 427 of 1997 and the Opposite Party No. 2 is also complying the order passed as back as in the year 1990 in terms of compromise.4. Since, the order p...
Dulal Nishad Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2845
ORDERVikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. In this writapplication filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order of detention passed under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the petitioner, vide Annexure-1 and also the confirmation order of his detention passed by the State Government, vide Annexure-4. 2. .The petitioner was in custody in connection with Manjhari P.S. Case No. 2/ 2001 under Section 386/387/34, IPC when the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 3-District Magistrate. West Singhbhum, was served on him on 7.5.2001 and the Government confirmed the order of his detention, vide Annexure-2, on 24.3.2001. The petitioner thereafter filed his representation, vide Annexure-3 and that representation was placed before the Advisory Board. On 20.6.2001, vide Annexure-4 the order dated 14.3.2001, Annexure-1, was confirmed by the State Government of Jharkhand and the peti...
Manoj Singh @ Manoj Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Mar-05-2002
Reported in: 2002CriLJ2311
Vikramaditya Prasad, J.1. This writ application has been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution for quashing the order of detention passed against the petitioner by the District Magistrate, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, in exercise of the powers under Section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981, Annexure-1 and the order of approval of the aforesaid detention order by the Government of Jharkhand, vide Annexure-3, and the order of the State Government passed under Section 20(1) read with Section 22 of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by which the detention of the petitioner was ordered to be till 6.6.2002, vide Annexure-5.2. The petitioner used to work a a petty Contractor and Sub- Contractor and was residing at Ranchi. He was an accused in the murder case of one Bijay Singh Soi, a Former M.P. and he was convicted by the Sessions Judge and his appeal against conviction is pending in the High Court and the petitioner had remaine...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »