Madhya Pradesh Court October 2012 Judgments
Rajesh Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.17763/2012 31.10.2012 Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri Vivek Sharma , learned Panel Lawyer for respondents, on advance copy. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the controveRs.involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by an order dated 9.5.2008 passed by the Gwalior Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5066/2007 (Brajesh Kumar Tiwari versus C.E.O.Zila Panchayat, Shivpuri and others).In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 9.5.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.5066/2007. Certified copy as per rules. (K.K.Trivedi) Judge. A.Praj....
Tag this Judgment!The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Smt. Gunraji Singh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Review Petition No.796/12. 31.10.2012 Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Brijesh Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent. C.P.Hingde posted as Regional Transport Officer at Jabalpur, is present in person. In view of order dated 29.10.2012, this matter is taken up for consideration out of its turn from the list of regular motion hearing cases of today. On asking the aforesaid Officer whether in compliance of order dated 29.10.2012, he has submitted the elaborate report on which, he submits that he has prepared the report and by tomorrow morning he is going to file the same. Such Officer also submits that he has come with the requisite entire record of grant of temporary permit to the Bus Operator subsequent to 20.9.2012. Let this matter be placed before the Court on 2.11.2012 along with the aforesaid report if the same is submitted by the Officer in the Registry as prayed. Said Officer is also directed to remain present before the Court on 2.11.2012 al...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdish Prasad Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.18196/2012 (J.P.Mishra versus State of M.P.& ors.) 31.10.2012 Heard Shri R.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 18.09.2012 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Maihar, District Satna, whereby the said authority has directed for lodging of FIR against the petitioner in respect of illegalities committed by him while he was working as a Manager/Sales Man of the co-operative society. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no illegality has been committed by him and the order has been passed on false allegations being made by certain complainants. Be that as it may, as this court cannot examine or look into the same in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, I find no reason to entertain the petition. The petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the ...
Tag this Judgment!Binda Prasad Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Binda Prasad Patel versus State of MP and otheRs.31.10.2012. Shri Raghvendra Kumar for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, PL, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner claims to be working as a daily wage employee in the respondents establishment since 2.2.1987 and has filed this petition seeking regularization in service. Keeping in view the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others versus Umadevi (3) and otheRs.(2006) 4 SCC 1.and the policy formulated by the State Government subsequent thereof, for considering the claim of employees for regularization, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in accordance to the Scheme formulated as per the directives issued by the Supreme Court, in the case of Umadevi (supra) and decide the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petition stands disposed of wi...
Tag this Judgment!Umakant Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Umakant Mishra versus State of M.P.& Another Writ Petition No.18089 / 2012 (s) 31.10.2012: Shri Brijesh Mishra,learnedcounselforthepetitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for theState. Petitioner is working as Assistant Development Vistar Officer in Janpad Panchayat District Tikamgarh andvideorderdated8.8.2012hehasbeentransferredto Shahnagar,DistrictPanna. Challenge to the order of transfer is made merely on the ground of personal inconveniences of petitioner duetoailmentofhiswife. The grounds raised by the petitioner in this writ petitionarepersonalinconvenienceofpetitionertheyare to be looked into by the competent authority of the departmentandonsuchconsiderationjudicialreviewof an administrative order of transfer is No. permissible. If petitioner files a representation before the competent authority, the said authority shall decide the representationwithinaperiodoffourweeks. Accordingly, finding ...
Tag this Judgment!Pramod Tiwari Vs. Chancellor
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. No.16824/2007 Pramod Tiwari Vs. Chancellor, JNKVV and others W.P. No.16825/2007 Rasool Shah Vs. Chancellor, JNKVV and others Present: Honble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon. Shri Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri P. N. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents. Whether approved for reporting: Yes/ No ORDER ( .10.2012 ) As common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions and as challenge made to the orders are identical in nature both these petitions are being decided by this common order.2. For the sake of convenience documents available and pleadings in the record of W.P. No.16824/2007 (s) is being referred to in the order.3. Petitioner Shri Pramod Tiwari in W.P. No.16824/2007 was working as a Sub Engineer in the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidhyalaya, Jabalpur (herein after referred to as "the 2 University"). He has completed more than 20 years of service and it is put fort...
Tag this Judgment!Subhadra Bai Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Writ Petition No.17172/12. 31.10.2012 Shri Narendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Adv.for the State- respondents no.1 to 4 on advance copy. On payment of P.F.along with requisite of the registered post within three working days, the notice against admission as well as of interim relief, returnable within six weeks, be issued to the respondent No.5 failing which, this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. State counsel has undertaken to file the return hence, no further notice is necessary to the respondents no.1 to 4. Petitioners counsel is directed to supply two sets of petition with annexures to the State counsel enabling him to take appropriate instructions from the concerning authority to prepare the return. Such exercise be carried out within 3 days. The interim prayer shall be considered after receiving the service report of the said notice so also after filing the return o...
Tag this Judgment!Pavitraram Tandiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 W.P.No.18015/2012 31.10.2012 Shri Amrit Lal Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.within one week returnable in four weeks. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner it is seen that petitioner had joined at the present place of posting only on 1.2.2012 and within a short period of five months, he was transferred. Taking note of these factors in the earlier writ petition this Court on 25.7.2012 in W.P.No.10838/2012 directing the respondents to take note of the fact that petitioner is being transferred within six months and after considering this aspect of the matter, respondents were directed to consider and decide the representation. Representation is rejected vide Annexure P/1 on 11.10.2012 and even though the question of posting of the petitioner at the present place about five months back is taken note of but only on the ground that one Ku. Pooja Sharma has joined in place of the petitioner, the representation has been r...
Tag this Judgment!Purushottam Kosta Vs. Shri R.S.Julniya
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
MCC No.1203/2012 31/10/2012 Shri Prabhakar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. This application is filed for restoration of Contempt Petition No.1534/2011, which was dismissed in default on 03/09/2012 because of non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Though it is stated in the application that due to sickness of the counsel, the counsel could not appeared and case was dismissed in default, but in support of this, neither any documentary evidence not any affidavit has been filed by the counsel. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, no case is made out to restore the contempt petition. This application is found without merit and is accordingly dismissed. However, a liberty is granted to the petitioner to file afresh contempt petition, if grievance is not redressed till date. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.Vimla Jain) JUDGE JUDGE...
Tag this Judgment!Harinam Shah Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 W.P.No.12643/2011 Harinam Shah versus State of M.P.& ORS.31.10.2012 Shri P.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.P.Tiwari learned counsel for the respondent Corporation. The learned counsel for the petitioner, after arguing at length on admission, submits that the petitioner is in occupation of the land on an assurance given by the erstwhile Special Area Development Authority which has subsequently been taken over by the Municipal Corporation, Singrauli to the effect that the petitioner would be allotted a plot of 40 ft. x 60 ft. in lieu of acquisition of his land in 1984 and was permitted to occupy the land on which he has constructed his house till such decision is taken. It is submitted that the respondent Corporation has not issued a show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to remove the petitioner's house in question by treating him as encroacher as no allotment has been made in his favour till date. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed a rep...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »