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.
Dilip Kumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Dilip Kumar Patel versus State of MP and otheRs.29.10.2012. Shri Ajeet Singh for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the respondents on advance notice. As the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment is still pending, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondents are directed to decide the application filed by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance to the policies and circulars applicable within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Virendra Singh Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17950/2012 29.10.2012 Shri Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the writ petition is listed on the question of maintainability before Principal Bench of this Court, but it is pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the issue involved in the present writ petition with respect to territorial jurisdiction of this Court has been put at rest by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.919/06 decided on 5.9.2007. It is further pointed out that this Court in W.P.No.8188/07(S) has passed an order on 21.3.2007 rejecting such an objection of the Registry. Considering the aforesaid, office objection is overruled. The registry is directed to make note of the aforesaid decision of this Court with respect to such objection and should not raise the objection with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of Process Fee within seven day...
Parvesh Singh Thakur Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17962 / 2012 (Parvesh Singh Thakur..Vs..State of M.P.& otheRs.29-10-2012 Heard Shri S. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only relief which is being sought for in the present petition is to the extent of directing the respondents to process the application for environmental clearance filed by the petitioner in accordance with the time schedule prescribed by the notification issued by the competent authority. It is submitted that in spite of the lapse of four months, the respondent/authorities are not proceeding to process the application for environmental clearance filed by the petitioner totally overlooking the fact that the petitioner has been granted trade quarry of mineral sand for a period of two years and in case the petitioner's application is not considered at an early date he will suffer an irreparable loss. In the circumstances, looking to the limited prayer made by the...
Lalmani Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
Lalmani Singh versus State & ORS.W.P.No.17890/2012 29/10/2012 Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned P.L.for the State. Petitioner is working as a Panchayat Secretary and has been transferred from one Gram Panchayat to another in the same District Sidhi. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on three counts. The fiRs.ground is that according to the transfer policy dated 31st of March, 2012 Annexure-P1, transfer to the extent of 10% of the total strength is only permissible. It is stated that in District-Sidhi, there are 90 Gram Panchayats and more than 33% transfers have already been made, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner is illegal. The second ground of challenge to the order of transfer is that the transfer is made contrary to the transfer policy in as much as the petitioner is being posted in a Gram Panchayat, which is adjacent to his home Panchayat, therefore, the transfer is illegal. Finally it is ar...
M/S K.K. Bhawsinka Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 W.P.No.4394/2012 M/s K.K.Bhawsinka versus State of M.P.& ORS.29.10.2012 Shri S.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondent/State. Shri Amit Singh learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3. Shri R.P.Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Anuj Agrawal learned counsel for respondent no.5. Shri Aditya Adhikari learned counsel for respondent no.7. Shri A.P.Singh learned counsel for respondent no.8. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that in accordance with clause 24 of the agreement entered into between the parties for construction of M.P No.5015 Dhauni to Lohradol Road, the petitioner has raised a dispute before the Chief Executive Officer, M.P.Rural Road Development Authority on 29.12.2011 which has not been adjudicated till date. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter is pending before the competent authority and shall be decided in 2 W.P.No.4394/2012 M/s K.K.Bhawsinka versus S...
Smt. Koushalya Tamrakar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.18054/2012 29.10.2012 Shri Neeraj Nahar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yogesh Dhande, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondents. Heard on the question of admission. It is contended in the writ petition that the dispute is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Dwarkesh versus State of M.P and another, [2004 (1) MPLJ 261 .and other analogous matters in W.P.No.2354/2003, W.P.No.2880/2003 (O.A.No.1309 and 2022 of 2002 decided on 30.8.2003) by Indore Bench of this Court and in the case of Ku.Neena Dwivedi and another versus State of M.P.and otheRs.2004(2) MPHT 221 Also reliance is placed on the order passed in the case of Shashi Bhusan Dwivedi versus State of M.P and others (W.P.No.6932/2006(s) decided by this Court on 15/05/2006. It is further contended that after the decision rendered in the aforesaid cases certain instructions were issued by the State Government. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court has further disposed of certain w...
Pradeep Agnihotri Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
1 Writ Appeal No.1087/2012 & Writ Appeal No.1088/2012 29/10/2012 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal , Advocate for the appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy. Advocate General for the State. This order shall decide Writ Appeal No.1087/2012 (Pradeep Agnihotri versus State of Madhya Pradesh & otheRs.and Writ Appeal No.1088/2012 (Pramod Mishra versus State of Madhya Pradesh & others).arising out of the common order dated 23/08/2012, in two separate petitions by the Single Bench. A short question arises for our consideration in the appeals is whether by virtue of Regulation issued by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) dated 05/03/2010, appellants herein were entitled to continue in his services till attaining the age of 65 years or Circular dated 19/10/2012 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh Technical Education and Training Department of Ministry, by which the aforesaid Regulations were given prospective effect with effect from the date of issuance of the order, will govern the age of supera...
Koushlendra Bahadur Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.17980/2012 29.10.2012 Shri R.S.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance copy. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the benefit of second Kramonnati has not been extended to the petitioners and certain recoveries have been ordered against them on account of cancellation of orders of Kramonnati. It is contended that the benefit of Kramonnati as was extended by the State Government was squarely applicable in the case of the petitioners and this was done. The benefit was extended to them, but later on saying that such a circular is not applicable, recovery has been ordered and, therefore, they are required to approach this Court. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Vajra Sen Jain versus The State of M.P.& others [Writ Petition No.824/2004(S)].decided on 15.9.2009, by Gwalior Bench of this Court. After due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for...
Smt. Vatsala Ivnati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
W.P.No.18062/2012 29.10.2012 Shri Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for respondents on advance copy. The petitioners claim grant of regular pay scale from the initial date of appointment. The benefit is claimed by the petitioners 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...
Rakesh Kumar Bhagat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
WRIT PETITION No.17842/20129. 10.2012 Shri Vivek Rusia, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State, on advance copy. The only grievance of the petitioner is that while submitting the online form, the processor has committed a mistake in printing the date of birth of the petitioner. This fact was brought to the notice of concerning authority immediately by the petitioner and he was allowed to take part in written examination for selection. Since not the petitioner has qualified the examination, online verification of his document is not being done only because there is a mistake in mentioning the date of birth. It is contended that though representations in this respect have been made and there are instructions issued by the competent authority, yet the mistake is not being rectified and, therefore, online verification is not possible. In such circumstances, the Government has issued circular dated 10.09.2012 directing th...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »