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.
Shivraj Lodhi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Shivraj Lodhi versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No. 17251 / 2012 10.10.2012: Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate, for the respondent/State. Considering the fact that a representation made by the petitioner in the light of appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak is pending before the Collector, as is evident from Annexure P7 dated 20.9.2012, for the present, without entering into controveRs. on merits the Collector is directed to consider and decide the representation in accordance to law after hearing all concerned within a period of two months 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/...
Brajnandan Tiwari Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.16305/12 10.10.2012: Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as a Timekeeper in the P.W.D. Sub Division Satna and has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 17/09/12 by petitioner is alloted certain work. Inter alia contending that the aforesaid order amounts to cancelling the earlier order of transfer which has been executed, this writ petition has been filed. Shri S.S.Bisen points out that the order Annexure P-1 is only an order regarding redistribution of work in the Sub Division at Kotar and as it does not amount to change of Head-quarter of the petitioner and as petitioner continues to work under the control of Executive Engineer and the S.D.O. Block Kotar, no interference can be made. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the order in question is only an order with regard to redistribution of work within the Sub Division at Kotar...
Smt. Chhaya Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Smt. Chhaya Yadav versus State of MP and otheRs.10.10.2012. Shri R.K.Patel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Naik, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Matter pertains to appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak. It is common ground that appointment of Gram Rozgar Sahayak is subject to statutory appeal and revision rules framed under section 91 of the MP Panchayat Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. As such, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the statutory remedy is not permissible. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take recouRs.to the statutory remedy available, this petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
R.K.Bhardwaj Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.NO.17127/2012 10-10-2012 Shri S.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen,learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State. The petitioners are working as Sub Engineer in the office of Rural Engineering Service, Kurai, District Seoni. By the impugned order dated 13-07-2012, the petitioner has been transferred from District Seoni to District Satna and Rewa respectively. Challenge to the impugned order of transfer is made mainly on two counts. The fiRs.ground is that the petitioners have not completed their tenure of 3 years at their present place of posting, therefore, the transfer before completing the period of 3 years service is contrary to the transfer policy and therefore, the transfer is illegal. The second ground canvassed is that the petitioners are transferred due to malafide of respondent no.4 and in support thereof an application said to have been submitted by the respondent no.4 to the Minister of the department (Annexure P-2) alongwith an affidavit of...
Smt. Asha Shrivastava Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
W.P.No.16993/12 10.10.2012: Shri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Ward No. 3, Sohagpur, District Shahdol. By the impugned order dated 13072012 passed by the Collector (Tribal Development). DistrictShahdol, petitioner has been transferred from Govt. Primary School Ward No. 3 to Govt. Middle School Bodri. 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 studentsteacher ratio would be disturbed and the statutory provision of Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 would be violate...
D.D.Yadav Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
D.D.Yadav versus State of M.P.& Anr. Writ Petition No.16617 10. 10.2012: Shri Dileep Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Raikwar, learned Government Advocate for the State. Petitioner is working as a Lab Technician in Government Girls College Katni. On 21.12.2011 the Commissioner, Higher Education suspended the petitioner on the ground of certain allegations of misconduct. Enquiry has been conducted and based on the enquiry report punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect have been imposed upon the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner has been reinstated after revocation of suspension, but inspite of posting him in Government Girls College Katni, from where he is suspended, he is posted to Government College Tendukheda District Damoh. Interalia contending that when petitioner is suspended due to pendency of department enquiry and when the suspension is revoked after departmental enquiry an employee is reinstated, he should be reinstated in the sa...
Smt. S. Kerkata Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-10-2012
Writ Petition No.17165/2012(S) 10.10.2012: Shri Shreekant Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.S. Bisen, learned Government Advocate, for the respondents/State. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Jamuai, Block Sohagpur, District Shahdol. By the impugned order dated 13072012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, DistrictShahdol, petitioner has been transferred from Government Primary School Jamuai, Block Sohagpur, District Shahdol. to Govt. Primary School Rohaniya. 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 studentsteacher ratio would be disturbed and the statutory provision of Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education A...
Sheetal Prasad Vishwakarma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
Writ Petition No.15617/12(0).9.10.2012 Shri Dilip Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sheetal Dubey, learned Govt. Adv.for the State- respondentsno.1 & 3 on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing the appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents to pay him adequate compensation of his land which has been acquired by the respondents under the provision of Land Acquisition Act. In addition to it, the prayer for appropriate direction to the respondents to extend him the benefit of Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy of 2007, is also made. Besides this, an additional prayer restraining the respondents authorities from threatening and use of muscle power on the petitioner and his family till the compensation amount and benefit of Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy of 2007, is not made to him. In the couRs.of arg...
Dharam Bai Vs. Parshu @ Parshuram Raikwar
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
W.P.No.14072 o9. 10.2012 Shri Sanjeev Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. In the available scenario of the matter instead to hear this petition on admission, the same is heard for final disposal. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 21.7.2012 passed by the 19th AMACT, Jabalpur in MJ.No.19/2012 whereby her application filed for premature encashment of the Fixed Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) made in compliance of the award dated 17.2.2011 passed by the aforesaid Tribunal in the Claim Case No.107/09, later which was affirmed by this court by enhancing some amount, vide dated 14.12.2011 in M.A.No.1338/2011. As per averments of the petition the petitioner wants encashment of aforesaid Fixed Deposit Receipt on account of her need for treatment of his son Raj Kumar, who sustained some injuries in vehicular accident. As per further averments of the petition and papers placed on record huge amount is require...
Municipal Council, Balaghat Vs. M/S Rishabh Developers and Builders, B ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-09-2012
1...W.A.No.1411 of 2010 Municipal Council Balaghat M/s Rishub DevelopeRs.09.10.2012 Shri Manot Sharma, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. A.G.for respondents No.1 to 6. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Sankalp Kochar, Counsel for respondent No.7. This appeal is directed against an order dated 13.10.2010 by which a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the master plan of township of Balaghat was dismissed. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant may be permitted to approach the State Government under Section 23 of the M.P.Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam,1973 for modification of the development plan for the township of Balaghat and in case the matter is referred to the Director, appellant may be permitted to represent its case before the Director. The prayer made by the appellant is not opposed by Shri Vijay Pandey, learned Dy. A.G.and Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior...
- ‹ Prev
- 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- 59
- 61
- 62
- 63
- 64
- 65
- Next ›
- Last »