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.
Kamla Pati Gautam Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Kamla Pati Gautam and another versus State of MP and otheRs.16.10.2012. Shri A.P.Singh for the petitioneRs.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Challenging the action of the respondents in permitting respondents 5 to 8 to continue on the post of Block Resource Coordinator and Assistant Project Coordinator, even though they have completed their tenure posting and are working for more than seven yeaRs.petitioners have filed this writ petition. Records indicate that with regard to the aforesaid grievance petitioners have already represented to respondent No.2 and the same is pending as is evident from Annexures P/4-A, P/4-B and P/4-C. Taking note of the aforesaid, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2 is directed to look into the grievance of the petitioneRs.take note of the same and if required after hearing respondents 5 to 8, decide the representation by a speaking order within a period of six weeks f...
Dr. Smt. Kumud Dubey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P.No.16039 o16. 10.2012 Shri Prashant Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. He is heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 19.6.2012, (Ann. P-1) passed by the Ist Additional District Judge, Bhopal in C.S.No.15-B/2011 dismissing his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. In the couRs.of arguments in response of some query of the Court instead to argue further the petitioner's counsel seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to raise all the grounds and objections stated in the petition subject to final judgment or decree of the trial court on arising the occasion in duly constituted appeal. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed with liberty, aforesaid. C c as per rules. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
M/S Land Mark Engineer Vs. the Chief Executive Officer
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
1 W.P.No.17609/2012 M/s Landmark Engineer versus Chief Executive Officer & Ors 16.10.2012 Heard Shri Sankalp Kochar learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondent authorities by order dated 21.9.2012 have imposed liquidated damages upon the petitioner and have terminated the contract for construction of the package No.3680 for construction and maintenance of Kodiya-Pandya-Chhapara-Ghisi Road under the M.P.Rural Road Development Scheme which has been undertaken by the respondent authority and pursuant thereto are taking steps to forfeit the security deposit and bank guarantee. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already approached the competent authority for adjudication of his reference for settlement by filing a reference on 8.10.2012 which is required to be decided by the authority within 45 days, but the authority,...
Kur Singh Baiga Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P.No.17521 / 2012 (Kur Singh Baiga ..Vs.State of M.P.& otheRs.16-10-2012 Heard Shri Arjun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent No.2, State Information Commission to decide the second appeal filed by the petitioner. Though the petitioner prays for the relief as aforesaid, it is apparent from a perusal of the documents filed by the petitioner alongwith the petition as well as the appeal that the petitioner has not mentioned in the petition as to whether the respondent No.2 has registered the appeal and whether the matter is pending before him. It is also clear that the second appeal has been filed by the petitioner on 7-7-2012 and thereafter what steps that have been taken by the second appellate authority has not been mentioned in the petition. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to issue any direction to the respondent No.2, State Information Commission at th...
Prem Narayan Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Prem Narayan Dixit versus State of MP and others 16.10.2012. Shri Awadesh Gupta for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Kachiya Khera, District Tikamgarh and has been transferred to Government Primary School, Matoli in the same District. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that it is contrary to the transfer policy and if the transfer is given effect to the student teacher ratio would be adversely affected and, therefore, the transfer is unsustainable. The aforesaid grounds are to be considered by the competent authority and a decision taken. Representation in this regard is already pending with the competent authority. Accordingly, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, the competent authority of the department is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law by a ...
Ratanlal Mehra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Ratanlal Mehra versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.17362 16. 10.2012: Shri V.K Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for respondent/State. Considering the fact that a departmental appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging his termination, is pending before respondent No.3, Commissioner Rewa, Division Rewa, for the present without entering into controveRs.on merits the said authority is directed to consider the appeal in accordance to law, if required, after given opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge ss/-...
Smt.Nivedita Tiwari Vs. Smt.Savitri Devi Chhattani
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Writ Petition No.16019/12 16.10.2012 Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Having heard on the question of admission, it is directed that on payment of P.F.along with requisite of the registered post within three working days, the notice against admission as well as of I.A.No.12571/12, an application for grant of stay against further proceedings of the trial Court, returnable by fixing a date in the month of December 2012, be issued to the respondent failing which, this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. As an interim measure till next hearing of this petition, the further proceedings of Civil Original Suit No.18-A of 2012, pending in the Court of Ist Civil Judge Class-I Satna, is hereby stayed. Certified copy as per rules. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge Pb...
Anirudh Singh Paraste Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
anirudh singh vs., state W.P.No.17702/2012 16.10.2012 Shri K.C.Ghildayal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F.within one week returnable in four weeks. A show cause notice Annexure P/9 dated 6.10.2012 has been issued by the appellate authority exercising powers under Rule 29 of the M.P.Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and the said appellate authority is proposing to review his earlier order . Prima facie on going through the material available on record, it is seen that action for review is being taken only because Director General of Police, M.P.in his communication dated 13.9.2012 has so ordered. Prima facie therefore, it is a case where the review is being initiated at the instance of a higher authority and not at the discretion of the reviewing authority. In view of the above, further action into the show cause notice Annexure P/9 dated 6th October 2012 is directed to be stayed till the next date. Noti...
Laxman Wadiva Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
W.P.No.17454/12 (s) 16/10/12 Shri Sunil Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Govt. Adv.for the State. Petitioner is working as a 'Patwari' and has been transferred from one Tehsil to another in the same district. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that petitioner has been transferred to his home Tahsil which is contrary to the transfer policy. Merely, because transfer policy is violated, judicial review into an administrative order is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs.S.L. Abbas AIR 1993.SC 244.and a Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and otheRs.I.L.R. [2007].M.P. 1329 . In view of the above, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the departmental remedies available, this petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon) Judge Vy/-...
Shivkant Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-16-2012
Shivkant Dixit versus State of MP and otheRs.16.10.2012. Shri Anubhav Jain for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Revenue Inspector. He was posted in Katni and vide order-dated 15.7.2012, he was transferred from Katni to Badwani. It was the case of the petitioner that most of the persons, who were transferred, were posted in nearby places whereas the petitioner was transferred to a far-off place like Badwani, more than 700 Kms away. Taking note of the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, on 23.7.2012, in W.P.No.10920/2012, this Court directed the competent authority to take note of these facts and decide the representation of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner is considered and rejected vide order-dated 26.9.2012 Annexure P/2 and, therefore, petitioner is again before this Court assailing the impugned action on the ground that the observations made by this Court with regard to benefit ...
- ‹ Prev
- 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- Next ›
- Last »