Madhya Pradesh Court December 2012 Judgments
Bhaskar Rao Mirase Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.20826/20131. 12.2012 Shri Manish Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notices of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. It is contended by the petitioner that in terms of an amendment made by the Registrar, Cooperative Society, in service Regulation not the age of superannuation of Class-IV employees has been enhanced from 60 to 62 yeaRs.The petitioner is one, who is serving on Class-IV post and accordingly was not to be retired at the age of 60 yeaRs.However, without there being any clarification, the order of superannuation has been issued in respect of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid, the order of superannuation of the petitioner at the age of 60 years is hereby stayed. The petitioner be reinstated and be treated in service till he attains the age of 62 yeaRs.List immediately after six weeks. Certified copy ...
Tag this Judgment!M/S R.N.A. Ores and Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M.P. Poorva Kshatirya Vidyu ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.22062/20131. 12.2012 Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri P.N.Verma, learned Counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that even after observation made by this Court in earlier round of litigation, by passing an order in W.P.No.16735/2012, no proceedings have been initiated by the respondents under Section 126 of the Electricity Act and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner despite the fact that the petitioner has deposited the amount before the respondents in terms of the directions issued by this Court and the order was brought to the notice of the respondents. It is contended that again the demand has been raised and the claim of the petitioner is not being adjudicated by initiating proceedings under Section 126 of the Act aforesaid. It is contended that not the final notice is given to the petitioner to deposit the amount or else the electricity connection of the petitioner would be disconti...
Tag this Judgment!Shivkant Dixit Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2012
W.P.No.22142/2012 31.12.2012 Shri Anubhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that he was transferred on earlier occasion on some political influences against which the writ petition was filed before this Court and since an interim stay was granted in the said case, the earlier order of transfer of the petitioner was withdrawn. However, subsequently again an order of transfer was issued in the year 2012, assailing which order, a writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court in Writ Petition No.10920/2012 has observed that the petitioner could be accommodated in a nearby district to Katni district instead of transferring him to Badwani. The representation made by the petitioner in this respect was rejected and, therefore, he was required to file yet another writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed, therefore, a writ appeal was filed by the petit...
Tag this Judgment!Sanjay JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-31-2012
WRIT PETITION No.21460/20131. 12.2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri P.N.Verma, learned Counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4. The only contention raised by the petitioners is that their land is being utilized for the purposes of construction of transmission line towers without acquisition of the land of the petitioneRs.Advance copy of the writ petition was made available to learned standing Counsel for the respondents-Company but a prayer is made for grant of time. Considering the aforesaid, issue notices of this writ petition to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A.D.Notices be made returnable in six weeks. Till the next consideration of this interim prayer, status quo with respect to the property in question be maintained in case the land has not yet been acquired by the respondents-Company for the purposes of construction of towers and compensation is paid to the petitioneRs.List immediately after six weeks. Cer...
Tag this Judgment!Rajesh Kumar JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.A.No.1420/2012 Rajesh Kumar Jain State of M.P.& others 21.12.2012 Smt.Sonali Shrivastava, counsel for appellant. Shri Vivek Agarwal, G.A., for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 30.7.2012 in W.P.No.11390/2012, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant against his transfer order from Jatara District Tikamgarh to Damoh District in the same capacity of Multi Purpose Health Worker dated 13.7.2012, has been dismissed. This order has been assailed by the appellant on the following grounds :- 1. That two children of the appellant are studying in Class-VII and Class-VIII and mid-session transfer would affect their educational career.2. That the appellant is having old aged parents and because of transfer they shall suffer. On the aforesaid grounds the transfer order cannot be interfered. It is settled law that the transfer order can be interfered only on the ground that it is against some statutory provision, or based on arbitrariness or malafide, in abse...
Tag this Judgment!Ashish Chouhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.P.No.21660/2012 21.12.2012 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Parag Shrivastava, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension from educational couRs.namely M.B.B.S.Annexure P-12 dated 17.01.2011 and show cause notice Annexure P-1 dated 20.11.2012 by which petitioner has been directed to show cause why his admission in M.B.B.S.couRs.may not be cancelled. It is submitted by the petitioner that an identical matter W.P.No.21008/2012 has been entertained by this Court. Considering aforesaid, we direct that this petition be listed along with W.P.No.21008/2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in response to show cause notice Annexure P-1 dated 20.11.2012 petitioner is required to look into the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, which report reveals about photo of the petitioner on OMR Sheet and admission form that there is possibility that these...
Tag this Judgment!Santosh Kumar Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
WRIT PETITION No.21288/20121. 12.2012 Shri Rahul Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioneRs.It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that while granting the benefit of Kramonnati, the pay revision of the petitioners was to be done in the pay scale as prescribed by the respondents-State in the scheme made for the teacheRs.in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000, because the petitioners were already absorbed on the post of Upper Division Teacher. It is contended that the circular has been issued in this respect vide Annexure P-7 but this circular was not looked into and the fixation of the pay of the petitioners was done in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000, which is not applicable even for the Assistant Teachers as is indicated in the circular of the State Government. Detailing all these facts, the representation has been made by the petitioners before the respondents but the same has not been considered as yet, therefore, they are required to approach this Court by way of filing th...
Tag this Judgment!Manmohan Singh Dodwa Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
W.P.No.21656/2012 21.12.2012 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Parag Shrivastava, counsel for petitioner. Shri Vivek Agrawal, Government Advocate for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the order of suspension from educational couRs.namely M.B.B.S.Annexure P-1 dated 17.01.2011 and show cause notice Annexure P-2 dated 20.11.2012 by which petitioner has been directed to show cause why his admission in M.B.B.S.couRs.may not be cancelled. It is submitted by the petitioner that an identical matter W.P.No.21008/2012 has been entertained by this Court. Considering aforesaid, we direct that this petition be listed along with W.P.No.21008/2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in response to show cause notice Annexure P-2 dated 20.11.2012 petitioner is required to look into the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, which report reveals about photo of the petitioner on OMR Sheet and admission form that there is possibility that these ...
Tag this Judgment!Anil Kumar Bhujang Vs. Mr. Rajnish Vaish
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
Contempt Petition No :1315. 2012 Anil Kumar Bhujang versus Mr.Rajnish Vaish and another 21.12.2012. Shri R.P.Mishra for the applicant. Shri Kamlesh Dwivedi for the non-applicants. In view of the order passed by the non-applicants on 27.8.2012, directing for payment of salary to the applicant, for the present without initiating any action for contempt, non- applicants are directed to ensure that the monetary benefits accruing to the applicant by virtue of the order Annexure R/1 is extended to him, if not already done, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid, the non-applicants are discharged from the proceedings and the contempt application disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Tag this Judgment!Pappu Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-21-2012
M.C.C.No.1451/2012 21.12.2012 Heard Shri Siddharth Datt, learned counsel for applicant on the application for restoration of W.P.No.13692/12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that as the counsel appearing for the petitioner could not understand the peremptory order, compliance was not made within the stipulated period which resulted in dismissal of the writ petition for non- compliance of the peremptory order . The application is supported by an affidavit of the counsel for the applicant and as the reasons stated therein appear to be bona fide, the application for restoration is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.09.2012 passed in W.P.No.13692/12 is recalled and the aforesaid writ petition is directed to be restored to its original number. M.C.C.stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be placed in the record of W.P.No.13692/12. C.C.as per rules. (R.S.Jha) Judge msp...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »