Jharkhand Court October 2011 Judgments
The Jharkhand Rajya Project Balika Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak/Karmchari ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-13-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that the order passed by Full Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4783 of 1996 dated 07.12.1999, upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6626-75/2001 vide order dated 03.01.2006, has not been complied with by the State Government. 3. In the contempt petition it has been submitted that earlier also contempt petition was submitted and that has been withdrawn and, thereafter, this contempt petition has been submitted. This contempt petitioner has been placed before the Full Bench in view of the fact that earlier order, disobedience of which has been alleged, was passed by the Full Bench of this Court. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Alam Committee was constituted in pursuance of the directions given in the orders referred above and thereafter, Chugh Committee was constituted vide order dated 20.06.2010. The Chugh Committee recommended in favour of the writ pet...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJHARKHANDATRANCHICr.Appeal(DB)No.481of2010RajeshSingh..................... Versus StateofJharkhand Coram: HonbleMr.JusticeR.K.Merathia Appellant RespondentHon'bleMr.JusticeP.P.Bhatt : :Mr.APP ForthePetitioner FortheState OrderNo.07Datedthe11October2011 th Nobodyappearsfortheappellant. Seenthereportdated23rd September2011,sentbythelearned courtbelow. The Court concerned and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, are directed to take all coercive steps for apprehension of the appellantRajeshSinghinaccordancewithlaw. Putupthiscaseon9thNovember2011. Let a copy of the order be sent through FAX to the concerned CourtaswellastotheSeniorSuperintendentofPolice,Ranchi.(R.K.Merathia,J)(P.P.Bhatt,J) Mukund/...
Tag this Judgment!Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Lalan Kr. Vs. Union of India and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI C.W.J.C. No. 293 OF 2001 Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Lalan Kumar Singh ------CORAM v. Union of India & Ors.HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MRS.JUSTICE JAYA ROY -----Md. Mokhtar Khan --------Dated 12th October, 2011For the Appellant/Petitioner For the Respondent- (C.B.I.) Order No. 77This case was listed in Court on 14.01.2011 and thereafter no date has been given by the Registry of the High Court. Necessary instructions have already been given to the Registry of the High Court to give the date in all cases and no case shall remain pending in High Court wherein specific date is not given by the Court. In spite of repeated instructions, we are coming across of such types of files where no date has been given by the Office. LearnedAdvocates have also requested for listing of the cases only because of no date has been given by the Registry to them. This is one of the grave matters wherein this Court has passed order on 14.01.2011 wherein it has been reported...
Tag this Judgment!Mantu Kumar and anr Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Bo
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI L.P.A No. 879 OF 2003 Mantu Kumar and another v. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. ------CORAM HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MRS.JUSTICE JAYA ROY Mr. A.K.Das Dr.S.N. Pathak,Sr. Adv. --------Dated 12th October, 2011For the Appellant/Petitioner For the Respondent Order No.8We have perused the second supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, Divisional Manager, Transport Department, Jharkhand. The affidavit only indicates that all has been done by submitting this affidavit to show that there is no body who has control over the entire Transport Department of Jharkhand and every one wants to shift the burden to another. Firstly, it has been stated that before bifurcation i.e. before 28.02.2009, the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation was responsible for the affairs of the Transport properties falling in the State of Jharkhand. Then; after 28.02.2009 efforts were made to evict the tenants who were given possess...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Birsa Sewa Sansthan Th Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P.(PIL) No. 3023 OF 2008 Bhagwan Birsa Sewa Sansthan v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. ------CORAM HONBLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONBLE MRS.JUSTICE JAYA ROY For the Petitioner For the Respondent Order No.25 Mr. L.C.Roy JC to Sr.S.C.I -----Dated 12th October, 2011Learned counsel for the State submits that in spite of deposit of requisite amount for final approval of the permission for laying pipe-lines of different diameters across N.H. 33 from Pardih Chowk (Km 246.00) to Dimna Chowk (Km 249.33) under Mango Water Supply Scheme by Drinking Water and Sanitation Division, Adityapur, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, National Highways Authority of India has not given final approval. In view of the above, issue notice to the National Highways Authority of India to its both addresses at White House, Block-A, Second Floor, 119, Park Street, Kolkata-700016 and at C-76, Harmu Housing Colony, Near Swami Sahjanand Chowk, Ranchi-834012, Jharkhand. Copy of this order may also be ...
Tag this Judgment!Mantu Kumar and Another Vs. Bihar State Road Transport Corporation and ...
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-12-2011
We have perused the second supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2, Divisional Manager, Transport Department, Jharkhand. The affidavit only indicates that all has been done by submitting this affidavit to show that there is no body who has control over the entire Transport Department of Jharkhand and every one wants to shift the burden to another. Firstly, it has been stated that before bifurcation i.e. before 28.02.2009, the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation was responsible for the affairs of the Transport properties falling in the State of Jharkhand. Then; after 28.02.2009 efforts were made to evict the tenants who were given possession for one year and were continuing to occupy the property for about more than 20 years and even did not pay the rent of the fixed amount which has been fixed long ago accumulating to the extent of Rs.10-15 lacs. Thereafter, it has been stated that the S.D.O., Ranchi did not cooperate and it has been further stated that th...
Tag this Judgment!Rajeshwar Sao @ Rajesh Sao @ Rajesh Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6838 of 2011 Rajeshwar Sao @ Rajesh Sao @ Rajesh Gupta ..... Versus The State of Jharkhand . CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha A. P.P. Petitioner Opposite PartyFor the Petitioner For the State 2/11.10.2011----Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 171 ofProsecution. the Indian Penal Code, 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and 17 of the CLA Act in connection with Pandu P.S. Case no.37 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. No.977 of 2011. From the FIR, it appears that petitioner was apprehended by the police and from possession of the petitioner, naxal literatures were recovered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner Rajeshwar Sao @ Rajesh Sao @ Rajesh Gupta is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bihar Vs. Soma Dubey and ors
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A No. 45 of 1991 (R) State of Bihar v. Chinibas Mahto & Anr. With F.A. No. 46 of 1991 (R) State of Bihar v. Soma Debya & Ors. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICEHON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ----For the Appellant : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, G.A For the Respondents : --Order No. 65 -----Dated 11th October, 2011Learned counsel for the State submits that State wants to file a detailed affidavit so as to indicate what is the latest position with respect to expeditious disbursement of the compensation to the persons whose lands have been acquired. Since the matter is a very old one and large number of persons are involved, the State should be very careful and should not seek further adjournment. However, in view of the involvement of large number of facts, time is granted and the matters be placed on 8th November, 2011 immediately after Dipawali Vacation. (Prakash Tatia, C J) (Jaya Roy, J)Dey/-Alankar-...
Tag this Judgment!Sudhir Kumar @ Tappu Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.6870 of 2011 Sudhir Kumar @ Tappu Versus The State of Jharkhand CORAM: . Opposite Party HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA : : Mr. Yogesh Modi A. P.P. ..... PetitionerFor the Petitioner For the State 2/11.10.2011----Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the Petitioner has been made accused for the offence under Sections 302/34 ofProsecution. the I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with Namkum P.S. Case no.163 of 2009, corresponding to G.R. No.4338 of 2009. The case relates to double murder and the informant was injured in this case. The case has been instituted against unknown. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of the confessional statement. It is also submitted that no eyewitness has named this petitioner. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for bail. Learned APP though opposed the prayer for...
Tag this Judgment!Janak Mandal Vs. State of Jharkhand
Court: Jharkhand
Decided on: Oct-11-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 2698 of 2011 -----Versus -----.... ...Janak Mandal. ........ ...Petitioner Opp. PartyThe State of Jharkhand CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. UPADHYAY -----For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For the Opp. Party : A.P.P. ----03 /11.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner is accused in a case registered under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that J.C.B. machine belonging to the petitioner was used for earth cutting within the reserved forest. It is submitted that no registration number or detail of J.C.B. machine used for earth cutting has been given in the F.I.R. petitioner has been implicated. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel, above named petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within a fortnight and on such surrender or in the event of hi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »