Madhya Pradesh Court December 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.
Altmas Khan Vs. the Board of Secondary Education
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.7115 / 2012 (Altmas Khan..versus The Board of Secondary Education, M.P., Bhopal & otheRs.12-12-2012 Shri Ramashanker Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent/Board. Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for revaluation of his answer sheets in the subject of Hindi relating to the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, conducted in the year 2010. The respondent No.1/Board has filed a return and objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground of delay and laches as it is stated that the petition has been filed seeking revaluation of the answer sheets of the petitioner in the examination that was held in the year 2010 after two yeaRs.It is also stated that as per the rules of the Board answer copies are destroyed within 120 days of the examination and in such circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be di...
Deepak Singraha Vs. State Information Commission
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.18597/2012 (Deepak Singraha versus S.I.C.& ors.) 12.12.2012 Heard Shri G.S.Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition praying for a direction to the respondent No.1 to decide appeal No.1931/2012 filed by the petitioner before the said authority on 02.04.2012. It is, however, observed that the petitioner has not filed any application for early or urgent hearing of the appeal before the respondent No.1 but has directly filed this petition before this Court. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the respondent No.1. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner does so alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the respondent No.1 shall deal with the same expeditiously in accordance with law and pass orders thereon as early as possible. With the aforesaid liberty, the petiti...
Maharana Pratap Krishi Avam Aoushdhi Anusandhan Samiti Chhatarpur Vs. ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.19664/2012 W.P.No.19666/2012 W.P.No.19667/2012 W.P.No.19671/2012 12.12.2012 Shri Manot Chansoriya, counsel for petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for respondent nos.3 & 4. This order shall decide W.P.No.19664/2012, W.P.No.19666/2012,W.P.No.19667/2012 & W.P.No.19671/2012 as the controveRs.involved in all the petitions are same. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19664/2012 (Late Pt.Gouri Shankar Sharma Shiksha Prasar Avam Jan Kalyan Samiti, Chhatarpur versus National Council for Teacher Education & others).The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition :- (i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing impugned letters dated 22-03-2012 and 26-06-2012 contained in Annexure P/3 & P/4 and further they may be directed to take further steps in accordance with NCTE Regulation and Hon'ble Court Orders passed in identical cas...
Shri Siyawar Shiksha Samiti Sagar Vs. National Council for Teacher Edu ...
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.19664/2012 W.P.No.19666/2012 W.P.No.19667/2012 W.P.No.19671/2012 12.12.2012 Shri Manot Chansoriya, counsel for petitioner. Shri K.K.Singh, counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for respondent nos.3 & 4. This order shall decide W.P.No.19664/2012, W.P.No.19666/2012,W.P.No.19667/2012 & W.P.No.19671/2012 as the controveRs.involved in all the petitions are same. For the convenience, facts are taken from W.P.No.19664/2012 (Late Pt.Gouri Shankar Sharma Shiksha Prasar Avam Jan Kalyan Samiti, Chhatarpur versus National Council for Teacher Education & others).The petitioner has sought following reliefs in this petition :- (i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing impugned letters dated 22-03-2012 and 26-06-2012 contained in Annexure P/3 & P/4 and further they may be directed to take further steps in accordance with NCTE Regulation and Hon'ble Court Orders passed in identical cas...
Mahesh Kumar Kewat Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.19178/2012 (M.K.Kewat versus State of M.P.& ors.) 12.12.2012 Heard Shri M.S.Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 is neither taking any decision on the application filed by the petitioner for allotment of a gumti alongwith a sum of Rs.10,000/- not is he refunding the same to the petitioner since 2010, and in such circumstances, the respondent No.2 be directed to take appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 25.09.2012. In view of the aforesaid limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.2 to take a decision on the petitioner's representation, either by processing his application or in case it is rejected, to refund the amount to him as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of...
Safiq Khan Vs. Jawaharlal Vishwakarma
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
MCC No.1338/12 12.12.2012 Shri Uday Raj Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Sharda Dubey, learned P.L.for the State-respondent no.2. Heard. The petitioner has filed this petition for restoration of Writ Petition No.15270/12, which has been dismissed on account of non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 26.9.2012 to cure the default raised by the Office. Having perused the petition, keeping in view the circumstances that the name of the petitioners counsel was not correctly mentioned in the cause list on the aforesaid date and pursuant to that, for want of knowledge of the order to cure the default within the prescribed period, the same could not be cured. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and subject to curing the default raised by the Office within further 7 days from today, the aforesaid writ petition is restored to its original number with a direction to proceed further failing which, the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the benefit of this ...
Shreya Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.19720/2012 12.12.2012 Shri P.N.Dubey, counsel for petitioner. Shri Jaideep Singh, Dy.G.A., for respondent no.1. Shri Brajesh Choubey, counsel for respondent no.2. This petition is admitted for final hearing. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 & 2 is accepted by Sarvashri Jaideep Singh and Choubey. They pray for four weeks time to file reply. Prayer is allowed. Issue notice to respondent no.3. Steps within a period of one week by Regd. A/D mode. Notice be made returnable within six weeks. Ad-interim writ. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per the letter Annexure P-8 issued by respondent no.2, petitioner who has been admitted to BAMS couRs.for the academic session 2011-12 has been informed that her eligibility application has been rejected as per para 6.1 of the M.P.Pahut Rules, 2012, because the petitioner was required to earn minimum 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology subjects, while the aforesaid Rules provides to pass jointly with 50% marks. The petit...
Digamber JaIn Shiksha Sanstha Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
W.P.No.18724/2012 (Digambar Jain Shiksha Sanstha versus State of M.P.& ors.) 12.12.2012 Shri P.C.Chandak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on advance copy. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an appeal against the impugned order. He, however, submits that the copy of the impugned order was supplied to the petitioner by the respondent after considerable delay, therefore, the appellate authorities be directed to consider and decide the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the same on the ground of limitation. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has no objection to the same. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal. It is further directed that in case the petitioner files an appeal within 30 days before the appellate authority alongwith a copy of the order pass...
Muratsingh Solanki Vs. Shri Ramesh Dave
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
Murat Singh Solanki versus Shri ramesh dave & ORS.1 Conc. No.1996/2011 12.12.2012: Shri V.S.Shroti, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Vikram Johri, for the petitioner. Shri V. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents. Inter alia contending that certain directions issued by this Court on 4.7.2011 in W.P.NO.10587/2011 has not been complied with, petitioner has filed this application. Record indicates that petitioner was placed under suspension and during suspension as certain benefits were not granted to him and as the suspension itself was said to be incorrect, he filed the writ petition. This Court did not find any substance for interfering with the order of suspension and therefore, does not interfered with the suspension. However, with regard to enhancement of subsistence allowance after expiry of three months and with regard to payment of T.A., D.A.liberty was granted to the petitioner to submit a representation before the competent authority who was directed to consider and decid...
Smt. Manju Janghela Vs. Smt. Urmila Janghela
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-12-2012
Smt. Manju Janghela versus Smt. Urmila and others 1 W.P.No.7314/2010 12.12.2012: Shri A.K.Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.N.Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri B.P.Pandey, learned Dy.Govt. Adv.for respondents No.2 and 3. Challenging the order dated 20th May, 2010 passed by the Additional Collector, District Mandla in the matter of appointment of Aanganwadi Karyakarta to the Centre in question, this writ petition has been filed. A preliminary objection is raised by respondents No.1 and 2 to the effect that against the order passed by the Additional Collector, petitioner has a remedy of filing second appeal before the Commissioner and therefore, a petition directly before this Court without taking recouRs.to the said remedy is unsustainable. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the record, it is seen that the matter in question pertains to appointment of petitioner on the post of Aanganwadi Karyakarta. Petitioner Smt. Manju Jangh...
- ‹ Prev
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
- 35
- 37
- 38
- 39
- 40
- 41
- Next ›
- Last »