Madhya Pradesh Court October 2012 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.
R.K. Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
R.K.Patel & Eight others versus State of MP and otheRs.01.10.2012. Shri R.K.Asati for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate, for the respondents on advance notice. Considering the fact that against the order of suspension in question, appeals filed by the petitioners under Rule 9 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 are pending, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, the competent appellate authority is directed to consider and decide the appeals filed by the petitioners in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Naresh Kumar Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
01.10.2012. Shri Rajesh Soni for the applicant. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State/non- applicants. Applicant is working as Rural Agriculture Extension Officer and he was transferred vide order-dated 13.7.2012. In Writ Petition No.14767/2012, this Court vide order-dated 11.9.2012 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Now, pointing out various personal difficulties and grounds of breach of transfer policy, application is filed for review/recall of the order passed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I see no ground for review/recall of the order, as there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review/recall. Application is accordingly dismissed. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Janpad Panchayat Kheralanji Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
1 W.P.No.16084/2012 Janpad Panchayat Kherjanji & Ors versus State of M.P.& ORS.01.10.2012 Heard Shri Sanjay Soni, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.on the question of admission. These petitions have been filed by the Janpad Panchayat, Kherlanji; Janpad Panchayat, Katangi; Janpad Panchayat, Balaghat and Janpad Panchayat, Lalbarra through their respective President. Ironically the Chief Executive Officer, who in fact represent the Janpad Panchayats have been impleaded as respondent nos.5, 6, 7 & 8. The petitioners have not brought any resolution or document on record to indicate that the Presidents have been authorized to file this petition on behalf of the Janpad Panchayat concerned. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Gram Panchayat, Bamrol versus Jagdish Singh Rawat and otheRs.2008 (3) MPLJ 127 the petition filed by the Janpad Panchayats though their President, being not maintainable, is accordingly dismissed. ( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-...
Darul Shafquat Society Kaala Dharwaja Vs. M.P.Wakf Board
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.3605/2007 (Darul Shafquat Society Kaala Dharwaja versus MP Waqf Board and another) 01.10.2012 Shri Gourav Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time. It is however, pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order dated 03.03.2007 which has been assailed before this court whereby the Wakf Committee had been constituted had a life of three years only which period has elapsed long back and therefore, nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition. It is pointed out that the operation of the impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 03.03.2007 had been stayed by this court by order dated 08.03.2007 and therefore, after a lapse of three years nothing further survives for adjudication in the present petition. It is submitted that as a result of the interim order further steps which are required to be taken in accordance with the Wakf A...
Santosh Kumar Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Santosh Kumar Mishra versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.16526 / 2012 (s) 1.10.2012: Shri Umesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Principal in Government UtkaRs. Uchttar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Teonthar, District Rewa. He has been transferred to Government Uchttar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Dhunwara, Maihar, District Satna vide order Annexure P1 dated 15.6.2012. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground that there is no administrative necessity and further contending that while posting in present place petitioner has been granted certain additional responsibilities of being PrincipalcumSecretary of another Uchttar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya in Model School and is also carrying out various additional responsibilities...
Riyaz Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
1 W.P.No.15209/2012 Riyaz Ali versus State of M.P & ORS.01.10.2012 Shri M.L.Jaiswal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri R.M.Sharma for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Dy. Advocate General for the respondent/State. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the M.P.Mineral (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 2006').It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the competent authority, whereby penalty of fine has been imposed upon the petitioner, is contrary to law as the said fine or penalty could have been imposed upon the petitioner only in case the offence punishable under the provisions of the Rules of 2006 was sought to be compounded. It is submitted that as the petitioner had not requested for compoun...
Akash Garg Vs. Board of Secondary Education Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
1 W.P.No.15770/2012 Akash Garg versus Board of Secondary Education & ORS.01.10.2012 Shri Sushil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. I.A No.12841/2012, for ignoring the default, is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Also heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to revaluate the petitioner's answer sheets in respect of Social Science, Hindi and English relating to Class-10th Examination conducted by the respondent Board in the year 2011-12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had answered all the questions rightly and, therefore, he is entitled to be awarded more than 90% marks in each answer sheet but the respondent Board has awarded him only 82.8% marks which is much below his expectation. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as gone through the answer sheets of the petitioner and the model answers fi...
Chandni Swa-sahayata Samooh Guluwa Block Sohawal Th:smt.Asha Kushwaha ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.12840/2012 (Chandini Swa-Sahayata Samooh versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 01.10.2012 Heard Shri K.K.Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent authorities are not permitting the petitioner to supply the mid-day meals at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Guluwa, Janpad Panchayat, Sohawal, District Satna for no rhyme and reason. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was supplying mid- day meals at the aforesaid school without any default or irregularity but because of political reasons he has not been permitted to do so against which he has filed a representation before the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat Satna but no decision thereon has been taken till date. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner be permitted to supply mid-day meals. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at leng...
Surya Bali Marko Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Surya Bali Marko versus State of MP and otheRs.01.10.2012. Shri V.K.Shukla, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate, for the respondents/State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Piparia, Block Sohagpur, District- Shahdol. By the impugned order dated 13-07-2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, District-Shahdol, petitioner has been transferred to Block Dhanpuri in the same District. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that under the Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009, there should be at least one teacher for every thirty five children. It is pointed out that if the petitioner is transferred the students-teacher ratio would be disturbed and the statutory provision of Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 would be violated and, therefore, the transfer is illegal. The question as to how the students-teacher ratio should...
Khuman Prasad Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.16229/2012 01.10.2012 Shri S.P.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. The petitioner claims grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioner in the light of the order passed by the Division Bench at Indore Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.346/2008 (Smt. Usha Ranawat versus State of M.P.and others).dated 18-12-2008. By the aforesaid order passed, more than 25 writ appeals claiming similar benefits were decided and it was directed that the benefit of pay fixation in the regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment shall be made to the petitioners therein. In fact the Division Bench has upheld the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in various cases and while deciding the writ appeals in para-19 the following directions were issued by the Division Bench: 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by writ petitions ...
- ‹ Prev
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 106
- 107
- 108
- 109
- Next ›
- Last »