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.
Shobhnath Singh Kawnar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Shobhnath Singh Kawnar versus State of M.P.& ORS.Writ Petition No.18035 31. 10.2012 Shri V.D.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the State, on advance notice. Vide order Annexure P-2 dated 27.8.2011 petitioner has been suspended due to lodging of FIR against petitioner. He continued to remain under suspension for about an year and when no further development took place petitioner filed an appeal and sought for quashment of suspension merely on the ground that even after a period of more than 9 months no action is taken and as per circular of the management petitioner was entitled for revocation of suspension. However, the appeal of the petitioner is not considered on merit, but is rejected only on the ground that there is delay in filing the appeal and, therefore, it is not entertained. The appellate authority in rejecting the appeal on such ground of delay has committed an error, the petitioner had came out with a grievanc...
Ku. Sunita Bhojak Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Sunita Bhojak versus State & ORS.W.P.No.18087/2012 31/10/2012 Shri Mahendra Pateriya and Shri Brijesh Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Supervisor in the Integrated Child Development Scheme Pathariya District-Damoh. On 13.7.2012, petitioner was transferred to area Niwari in District- Tikamgarh. Petitioner has challenged the said transfer by approaching this Court in W.P.No.12153/2012(s) and on 9.8.2012, a bench of this Court found that the transfer in question is not in violation of the statutory provisions not is it suffer from the vices of malafide. However, as the representation of the petitioner is pending, competent authority was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner. not the representation is rejected and, therefore, petitioner is again before this Court. Challenge to the order of transfer is not made on the ground of violation of statutory provision, not is any malafide made out. The only ground raised for challenging the o...
Smt. Netu Rathore Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
smt. neetu rathore versus state 1 W.P.No.18019/2012 31.10.2012 Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Lab Technician on contract basis and as a temporary measure due to paucity of Lab Technician in Vidisha District, petitioner is transferred to Vidisha. Transfer is temporary in nature and petitioner has challenged the same mainly on the ground that petitioner is a lady, she has small children and it is not possible for her to go to Vidisha from Sihore every day and transfer would cause personal inconveniences to her. Grounds raised by the petitioner for assailing the order of transfer are not such on the basis of which judicial review of an administrative order can be made by this Court. Personal inconveniences of the petitioner are to be appreciated by the competent authority of the department and a decision taken after evaluating the administrative requireme...
Ramesh Prasad Ahirwar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Ramesh Prasad Ahirwar versus State of MP and otheRs.31.10.2012. Shri Dinesh Upadhyaya for the petitioner. Shri V.P.Tiwari, PL, for the State on advance notice. Challenge in this writ petition is made to a show-cause notice dated 5.9.2012, which has been issued to the petitioner by Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Tikamgarh. It is the case of the petitioner that for the impugned action recovery is already ordered by the Sarpanch, as such action cannot be initiated against the petitioner. For the present only a show-cause notice has been issued and a final decision is yet to be taken. Petitioner should represent and submit his reply to the show-cause notice and thereafter it would be for the competent authority to take decision in the matter. In the present case as only a show-cause notice is issued, I see no reason to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all objections before the competent authority in reply to the show- cause notic...
United India Insurance Co Ltd Vs. Rajendra Kumar JaIn and anr
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
(1) M.A. No.2048/2002 HIGH COURT OF M. P. JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava Misc. Appeal No.2048 / 2002 Appellant United India Insurance Company, Jabalpur (M.P.) Vs. Respondents:1. Rajendra Kumar Jain (deceased) Through LRs (a) Smt. Maduri Jain, W/o. Shri Subhash Chand Jain, D/o. Late Shri Rajendra Chand Jain, R/o. Tendukheda-Damoh Road, Damoh (M.P.) (b) Smt. Manisha Jain, W/o. Shri Anil Kumar Jain, D/o. Late Shri Rajendra Chand Jain, R/o. Tendukheda, Damoh Road, Damoh (M.P.) (c) Mohan Lal Jain, S/o. Late Rajendra Chand Jain, R/o. 108, Garha Purba, Jabalpur (M.P.) 2. Shri Subhash Chand Jain, S/o. Kallooram Jain, Tempo Owner, R/o. 914, Nagpur Road Tripuri Chowk, Garha, Jabalpur (M.P.) ________________________________________________________ Shri Suresh Yadav, Advocate for appellant. None for respondent no.1(a) to (c). Shri R.N. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.2. ________________________________________________________ (2) M.A. No.2048/2002 JUD...
The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Gopal Krishna Shrivastava
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
1 M.C.C. No.975/12 31/10/12 Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the petitioners/State. Shri Akash Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents. Keeping in view the additional affidavit filed by the respondents in pursuance to the order passed on 21/09/12 and finding some justification in the delay caused due to reasons as are indicated in the said affidavit, this application is allowed. Even though Shri Akash Choudhary has raised certain objections but keeping in view the difficulties expressed by the non-applicants and the action taken by them as is evident from the material available on record, interest of justice requires that respondents should be granted some more time to comply with the directions. Accordingly, time for implementing the order passed by this Court on 9/11/10 in W.P.No.12600/05 (s) is extended by a further period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, application stands allowed and disposed of. (Rajendr...
Kamta Prasad Soni Vs. the Director, Deptt. of Urban Administration
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
Kamta Prasad Soni versus State of MP and otheRs.31.10.2012. Shri Devesh Khatri for the petitioner. Shri K.K.Pandey for respondent No.3. None for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Petitioner is working in the Nagar Panchayat, Budhar as a Pump Attendant. It is the case of the petitioner that one Shri Radhika Prasad Tiwari, who was also working as Pump Attendant and was junior to the petitioner, has been regularized whereas the petitioner has not been regularized. Annexure P/14 is the order regularizing Shri Radhika Prasad Tiwari. Respondent No.3 CMO, Nagar Panchayat represented by Shri K.K.Pandey submits that Shri Radhika Prasad Tiwari has been regularized on the basis of order passed by the State Government and as the State Government has taken action it is stated that the Municipal Council cannot do anything in the matter. Considering the fact that petitioner is claiming the benefit as has been granted to Shri Radhika Prasad Tiwari, respondents are directed to take action in the matter and cons...
Vinod Kumar Chourasiya Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.17399/20131. 10.2012 Shri A.K.Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents-State on advance copy. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the petitioner No.2 is a retired Govt. servant but since he is fully dependent on petitioner No.1, his son, who is a Govt. servant, the medical reimbursement was claimed on account of ailment of petitioner No.2. The said matter was referred to the authorities but the same has been returned back saying that the petitioner No.1 would not be entitled to get the reimbursement of medical expenses for the treatment of petitioner No.2 as retired Govt. servant cannot be treated to be fully dependent on his son. It is contended that the issue has already been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of State of M.P.versus M.P.Ojha & another, 1998 MPLSR 62 wherein decision rendered by the M.P.State Administrative Tribunal in such a matter has been upheld and it has been categoric...
Sukratlal Chakrawarti Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
MCC No.1100 o31. 10.2012 Shri M. Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Amit Kumar Sharma, learned PL for respondent Nos.1 to 3, on advance copy. Let notice against admission of this petition as well as for final disposal by fixing a date in the last week of November 2012 be issued to the respondent Nos.4 and 5. Necessary steps with requisites of registered posts be taken within three working days, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference to the Bench. As the aforesaid notices have already been taken by learned PL on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3, hence no further notices are required to them. The case be listed on the date so mentioned in the aforesaid notices. ( U.C.Maheshwari ) Judge bks...
Bindu Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Oct-31-2012
W.P.No.17545/2012 (Bindu Sahu versus State of M.P.& ors.) 31.10.2012 Heard Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the respondent authorities are not filing quarterly report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as directed by this Court by order dated 23.08.2011 passed in W.P.No.15272/2010 in respect of the steps taken by them for searching out the corpus of the missing minot daughter of the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to fact that similar issues raised by the petitioner in the previous petition has already been dealt with by this Court and appropriate orders have been passed, I find no reason to entertain the second petition filed on the same ground. As far as the contention of the petitioner regarding non-compliance of the direction issued by this court in W.P.No.15272/2010 is concerned, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to take...