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.
Jila Thok Upbhokta Bhandar Sagar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.11578 / 2012 (Jila Thok Upbhokta Bhandar..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.01.10.2012 Heard Shri Nitin Karan, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition against the show cause notice dated 2-6-2012 apprehending that the respondent authorities would cancel the allotment of the fair price shop made in favour of the petitioner under the M.P.(Food Stuffs) Public Distribution Scheme of 1991 on coming into force the M.P.Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009 without taking into consideration the fact that the Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing W.A.No.52/2012, has made certain observations in paragraph 7, protecting the rights of those who have been allotted fair price shop under the 1991 Scheme in the following terms :- In the present case, the appellant challenged the cancellation of fair price shop on the grounds of Clause 15 of Control Order, 2009, which is a saving clause and saves the r...
Bhagchand Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Bhagchand Chouhan versus State of MP and others 01.10.2012. Shri V.K.Shukla for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate, for the respondents on advance notice. Challenging an order-dated 30.3.2012 Annexure P/1, by which in accordance to a proceeding held against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the MP Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect has been imposed, petitioner has approached this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that the punishment has been imposed without taking note of the explanation and defence submitted by the petitioner and certain documents produced in the matter. That apart, it is stated that because of the punishment, the case of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineer, which was to be considered in the DPC held on 14.7.2012, has been kept in abeyance and not he is suffering adversely. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned coun...
Smt. Reeta Bagare (Chachane) Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
WRIT PETITION No.16057/2012 01/10/2012 Shri V.P.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on admission. The sole relief which the petitioner seeks in the present petition is direction to the respondents to decide the representation regarding higher pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/-. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that petitioner is working as UDT and though he was entitled for higher pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/- he was paid pay in the scale of Rs.5000-150-8000/-. It is submitted that though representation for higher pay scale was made to the Competent Authority, but the same has not been decided as yet and the petitioner has been deprived of senior pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/-. It is accordingly, urged that the petitioner be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner in respect of higher pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000/-. Learned Government Advocate has no objection if respondents are directed to decide...
Babu Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
Babu Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.01.10.2012. Shri S.R.Tamrakar for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Shri Paresh Pareek for respondent No.5 on caveat. Challenging the order-dated 18.9.2012 passed by the prescribed competent authority namely Sub Divisional Officer, Sehore, District Jabalpur referring the matter to the Collector under section 85(1) of the MP Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam of 1993).petitioner has filed this writ petition. In pursuance to an advertisement issued on 27.10.2006 by Gram Panchayat Goura Negai, Block Janpad Panchayat Majhouli, District Jabalpur, petitioner and respondent No.5 applied for appointment as Panchayat Karmi. Petitioner was an elected Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat in question and, therefore, it is his case that before submitting his application, he resigned from the post of Sarpanch, the resignation was accepted by the Gram Panchayat in i...
Mangal Singh Maravi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.9532/2009 01.10.2012 Shri K.N.Pethia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. The return filed by the respondents is not explaining anything, with respect to the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition. In view of the aforesaid, let the Departmental Promotion Committee record of the year 1987, 1997 and 1998 be produced before this Court for perusal whenever the claims of persons like petitioner were considered for promotion, on the next higher post. List in the week commencing 19.11.2012 for the said purposes. A copy of the order be made available to the learned Govt. Advocate for communication of this order to the respondent authorities. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Shri Krishn Malviya Vs. Secretary the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.11675/2009 01.10.2012 Shri P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondents, on advance copy. This Court has specifically ordered on 30.11.2009 to pay at least the provisional pension or interim pension to the petitioner. This order was reiterated on 12.5.2011 and direction was issued to make the compliance. On 13.9.2012, since the compliance of earlier orders of this Court were not reported, this Court had granted an opportunity to the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat Sehore to comply with the order or his presence was to be asked for. Today, Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate informs that he had certain information from the respondent No.3, the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Panchayat, Sehore and he needs a week's time to submit the compliance report. Time as prayed for is granted. List in the week commencing 16.10.2012 for submitting the compliance report. It is made clear that by the aforesaid...
Premlata Uikey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.16615 / 2012 (Premlata Uike ..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.01-10-2012 Shri Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri R.P.Tiwari, learned G.A.for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Though the petitioner has filed this petition raising several issues, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition be disposed of with a direction to the Nazul Officer, Rajdhani Pariyojana, T.T.Nagar, Bhopal, S.D.O., T.T.Nagar, Bhopal and the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal to take appropriate steps on the application filed by the petitioner requesting for removal of encroachments made on the Government land besides the petitioner's accommodation. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents on instructions, submits that the concerned authority shall look into application filed by the petitioner and take appropriate steps in the matter in accordance with law. In the circumstances, in v...
Sahiba Khatoon Ansari Vs. Municipal Corporation
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
MCC No.1124/2012 1/10/2012 Shri Akshay Sapre, learned counsel for the applicants. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the State Government on advance notice. Heard Shri Akshay Sapre, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counse for the State Government on advance notice. This Court on 22.4.2010 disposed of the Writ Petition No.3077/1998 granting 45 days time to the petitioners to file an appeal before the competent authority. It is pointed out by Shri Sapre that when the order was passed on 22.4.2010 counsel of the petitioners was not present and therefore, he was not aware of the order passed. He got the certified copy of the same after the time limit fixed by this Court had lapsed and therefore, this application for seeking extension of time for filing appeal has been filed. Keeping in view the aforesaid and finding the prayer made to be bonafide, this application is allowed. Time limit granted on 22.4.2010 in W.P.No.3077/98 to file the ...
Mahila Bahu Uddeshiy Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Vs. Principal Secretary t ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
W.P.No.13568/2012 (Mahila Bahu Uddeshiya Sahkari Samiti versus State of M.P.& ors.) 01.10.2012 Heard Shri Praveen Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition apprehending that the respondent authorities would implement the order dated 21.12.2011 and cancel the allotment of the fair price shop made in favour of the petitioner under the M.P.(Food Stuffs) Public Distribution Scheme of 1991 on coming into force the M.P.Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009 without taking into consideration the fact that the Division Bench of this Court, while dismissing W.A.No.52/2012, has made certain observations in paragraph 7, protecting the rights of those who have been allotted fair price shop under the 1991 Scheme in the following terms :- In the present case, the appellant challenged the cancellation of fair price shop on the grounds of Clause 15 of Control Order, 2009, which is a saving clause and...
Mani Prasad Mishra Vs. Shivendra Bahadur Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-01-2012
1 W.P.No.7017/2012 Mani Prasad Mishra versus Shivendra Bahadur Singh & ORS.01.10.2012 Heard Shri Vijay Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the police authorities. Apparently, the dispute raised by the petitioner relates to certain service benefits taken by respondent no.1 and, therefore, I find no reason to issue any direction to the respondent no.2 as prayed for by the petitioner. The petition, filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take up remedies available to him under law i.e.the CrPC, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sakiri Vasu versus State of Uttar Pradesh and otheRs.(2008) 2 SCC 40.and Divine Retreat Centre versus State of Kerala and otheRs.(2008) 3 SCC 542.if so advised. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C as per rules. ( R.S.JHA ) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 99
- 100
- 101
- 102
- 103
- 104
- 105
- 106
- 107
- 109
- Next ›
- Last »