Jharkhand Court August 2005 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.
Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR376(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner against Order No. 6(b)/2004, dated 23rd July, 2004, issued under the signature of Director (SR), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India, New Delhi, whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been allocated the successor State of Bihar under the orders of the Central Government, in exercise of powers, conferred under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000.2. While the writ petition was pending, the Central Government issued Letter No. 14/279/2004-SR(S), dated 15th September, 2004 under the signature of the Director (SR), whereby and whereunder, certain guidelines have been given to reconsider the representation(s), preferred by the aggrieved persons after final allocation of the cadre. For proper appreciation of the guidelines, it is desirable to refer the contents of the letter, as quoted hereunder :'1.1. New Additions.-This includes such...
Chotanagpur Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR80(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Heard the parties.2. Petitioner is challenging the order dated 4.4.2005 issued under the signature of Secretary, Ranchi Regional Development Authority, Ranchi whereby the authority refused to sanction the plan on account of non-production of mutation papers and rent receipts.3. Mr. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that production of rent receipts and mutation papers is not mandatory and therefore the sanction cannot be refused on that account.4. From perusal of 5.2 (V)(b) of the Modified Building Bye Laws, it is manifestly clear that owner who applies for development sanction is required to submit attested copy of the revenue receipt, municipal holding tax receipts with khesra/holding number or mutation records.5. Even assuming that such requirement is not provided in the bye-laws, I am of the opinion that unless the owner who applies for development plan or building plan gets mutation in respect of the land in question and revenue recei...
MamoodIn Ali Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR374(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This application has been preferred by the petitioner against Order No. 6(jh)/2004 and Order No. 6(b)/2004 both dated 29th July, 2004, whereby and whereunder, the Central Government in exercise of power, conferred under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000, has allocated him the successor State or Bihar.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on recent guidelines, issued by the Central Government vide Memo No. 14/ 279/2004-SR(S) dated 15th September, 2004 and submitted that the State Government has been empowered for fresh allocation of the State on certain grounds. Though such submission has been made, there is nothing on the record to suggest that the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid guidelines.3. In the facts and circumstances, while this Court is not inclined to give any finding on the merits of the case, as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, gives liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority of the State Governm...
Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-16-2005
Reported in: [2006(1)JCR375(Jhr)]
ORDER1. This case related to final allocation of cadre under Section 72(2) of the Bihar Re-organization Act, 2000. While the petitioner has challenged the final allocation order, has also prayed for a direction on the respondents to correct the final list on the ground that certain irregularities and illegalities have been committed in the matter of allocation of cadre of extremely backward class.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on recent guidelines issued by the Central Government vide Memo No. 14/279/ 2004-SR(S) dated 15th September, 2004 and submitted that even after final allocation orders, the State Government has been permitted to recommend/change for allocation of cadre on certain grounds.3. Though such submission has been made it has not been pointed out as to how the petitioner is covered by the aforesaid guidelines.4. Having heard the learned Counsel, while this Court is not inclined to give any finding on the merits of the case, in absence of detail pleadings, gi...
Bhagwat Bhandari Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-12-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ4796; [2005(4)JCR296(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.4.2005 passed by the learned 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 54/2003, whereby the petitioner has been summoned to face trial as an additional accused.2. The petitioner's case is that previously, before framing of charge, the informant had filed a petition dated 24.6.2002 under Section 319, Cr PC, where upon the Court had issued summons to the petitioner calling upon him to face the trial as an additional accused, who was not sent up for trial in the charge-sheet. The petitioner had challenged the said order in the Patna High Court in Cr. Revision No. 635/99 (P). The said Cr. Revision was disposed of the order dated 3.8.1999 allowing the revision. The petitioner's case is that an FIR was lodged under Sections 451, 323, 307 and 341, IPC against three named persons, namely, Bhagwat Bhandari, Shiv Narayan Bhandari and Divakar Bhandari but after invest...
Justice Choudhary S.N. Mishra Vs. State of Jharkhand Through the Chief ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: [2005(4)JCR25(Jhr)]
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. The only question which falls for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the same privilege and perquisites which he was enjoying as a sitting Judge of the High Court particularly in the matter of reimbursement of medical bills.2. The petitioner retried as a Judge of the Jharkhand High Court. After retirement the petitioner was appointed as the President, Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, pursuant to the notification dated 13.6.2001. In the first week of March, 2004, the petitioner became sick and got admitted in the Ranchi Nursing Home and thereafter he went to Kottakal (Kerala) for treatment which continued up to 28.6.2004. Serious cases of cervical disorder, arthoritis and bone related problems were treated at Kottakal (Kerala). The petitioner also underwent cervical surgery in All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi. Earlier a bill of Rs. 17,202.19 was submitted to the concerned Government Department, i.e. Depart...
Tata Workers' Union and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: 2005(3)BLJR1862; [2005(4)JCR153a(Jhr)]; (2006)ILLJ813Jhar
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. This writ petition was preferred by petitioner, Tata Workers' union and others against an order No. 192, dated 4th February, 2005 issued by the 2nd respondent-Registrar, Trade Union-cum-Commissioner on a complaint of one S.N. Singh 4th respondent. By impugned order, the 2nd respondent-Registrar while held the election of other bearers not in accordance with law, refused to register the newly elected members of the Executive Committee. Direction was also given to take steps for fresh election of the members of Executive Committee and to make interim arrangement.2. After the order aforesaid, the 2nd respondent-Registrar, Trade Union issued another order dated 6th May, 2005 under Section 10(b) of Trade Union Act, 1926 and the registration of the Trade Union, in question, was cancelled. The order of cancellation was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in a writ petition being WP (L) No. 3869 of 2005. A Bench of this Court vide its order dated 9th Aug...
Om Prakash Chandra and anr. Vs. the State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: AIR2006Jhar55; 2005(3)BLJR1861; [2005(4)JCR146(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. The writ petition was preferred by the petitioners for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon 4th to 6th respondents to explain immediately and forthwith as to under what authority or law they are making construction of Industrial Training Institute over various plots of land having Khata No. 88 measuring 16.54 acres, recorded jointly in the name of the Raiyats of Mauza Hansker.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the State authorities are constructing Industrial Training Institute building without acquiring the land in question.3. Counsel for the State was directed to obtain instruction as to whether the land on which the respondents intend to construct Industrial Training Institute building in the District of Garhwa belongs to the State Government or the same has been acquired.4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of 2nd to 5th respondents and another on behalf of 7th respondent.5. The 7th respondent, in his counter-...
Kameshwar Prajapati Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-11-2005
Reported in: 2006CriLJ773; [2005(4)JCR291(Jhr)]
Amareshwar Sahay, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The petitioner, who was named in the FIR as an accused in connection with Sonahatu P.S. Case No. 27 of 2003 registered under Sections 302, 494/34/120-B of the Indian Penal Code has filed this revision application challenging the order dated 22.7.2004 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti, in Sessions. Trial No. 600/2003, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for declaring him to be a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection Act, 2000.3. According to the FIR the allegations as it appears, are that the daughter of the informant namely, Babita Kumari was forced to get married with the other co-accused Kamla Kant Prajapati, who was allegedly already a married man and was having two children. In spite of the fact that his wife was alive, the accused Kamla Kant Prajapati got married with the daughter of the informant. It was further alleged that the deceased-daughter of the informant lived with the accused Kamla ...
Sri Azad Chandra Shekher Prasad Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors.
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Aug-10-2005
Reported in: [2005(3)JCR532(Jhr)]
Altamas Kabir, C.J.1. This writ petition is one of several matters, which have been referred to the Division Bench for hearing and disposal inasmuch as it involves a question regarding invocation of Rule 74(b)(ii) of the Jharkhand Service Code by the Jharkhand High Court in recommending compulsory retirement of the writ petitioner.2. As will appear from the case made out in the writ petition, the writ petitioner was appointed as a Munsif in the Bihar Judicial Service and he joined the said post on 9th June, 1975. According to him, he performed his duties and functions to the entire satisfaction of the authorities concerned and was lastly promoted to the post of Subordinate Judge in the year 1992 when he was posted as a Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate at Jamtara. According to the writ petitioner, he was transferred to Ranchi in December, 1992 as a Subordinate Judge and continued in the said post till January, 1996. While working in the said post, the petitioner was served with a show...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »