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.
Dharam Singh Parte Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
dharam singh parte versus state W.P.No.19899 3. 12.2012: Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Patwari and has been transferred from one Tahsil to another. Even though various grounds are raised challenging order of transfer, but considering the fact that a detailed representation submitted by petitioner assailing the transfer is still pending consideration before the competent authority, without entering into the controveRs.on merits the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of petitioner in accordance to law within a period of 4 weeks. If representation has not been presented, the same be submitted along with copy of this order within a period of one week. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, petitioner is permitted to work at his present place of posting. With the aforesaid the petitions stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) J...
Hari Singh Parmar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
Hari Singh Parmar versus State of M.P.& ORS.W.P.No.20031/2012 05/12/2012 Shri Dipak Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as a Sahayak Ashyapak in Government Middle School, Patori and grievance of the petitioner is that on a report submitted by Respondent No.3, Respondent No.2 the District Education Officer has suspended the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner applied for leave, it was sanctioned by Respondent No.3 and on the same day, Respondent No.3 inspected the school and submitted report. The claim of the petitioner is that he was on leave and on the ground of unauthorized absence, he cannot be suspended. The question with regard to quashing the suspension order goes to the factual dispute between the parties with regard to the allegations levelled against the petitioner and at this stage, it is not appropriate for this Court to interfere into the matter, conduct an enquiry on the allegations levelled and examine the matter...
Harihar Prasad Urmalia Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.No.20175/2012 (H.P.Urmaliya versus State of MP and otheRs.03.12.2012 Heard Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.M.Lal, learned G.A.for the State on advance copy on the question of admission and interim relief. The only relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present petition is a direction to the respondent No.2, Registrar Firms and Societies, Bhopal to consider and decide the application under section 26 of the M.P.Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 filed by the petitioner before the said authority wherein the petitioner had sought direction for being given charge or in the alternative to conduct a fresh election. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the application under section 26 of the Adhiniyam was filed before the respondent No.2 by the petitioner only on 08.10.2012 and in such circumstances, the authority is not committing any delay and shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with ...
Ansarul Karim Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
ramesh janghela versus state W.P.No.19901 3. 12.2012: Shri V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as Patwari and has been transferred from one Tahsil to another. Even though various grounds are raised challenging order of transfer, but considering the fact that a detailed representation submitted by petitioner assailing the transfer is still pending consideration before the competent authority, without entering into the controveRs.on merits the competent authority is directed to decide the representation of petitioner in accordance to law within a period of 4 weeks. If representation has not been presented, the same be submitted along with copy of this order within a period of one week. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, petitioner is permitted to work at his present place of posting. With the aforesaid the petitions stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judg...
Smt. Saroj Devi JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
Smt. Saroj Devi Jain versus State of MP and another 03.12.2012. Shri Amit Chaturvedi for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Against the order cancelling the transfer in question and the impugned action, a representation filed by the petitioner is still pending. Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present without entering into the controveRs.on merits, respondent No.2 The District Education Officer, Panna is directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance to law within a period of four weeks. Till the aforesaid exercise is not completed, status quo in the matter of working of the petitioner shall be maintained. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified copy as per rules. (RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-...
Gopal Sharan Dwivedi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
1 W.P.20036 o3. 12.2012 Shri Anil Dwivedi, counsel for the petitioner.Shri P. Dharmadhikari, GA for the respondent No.1 to 5. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 ( the same appears to be under Article227) of the Constitution of India for quashment of the order dated 23.11.12 Annex.P/1 passed by the Commissioner Revenue, Shahdol affirming the order dated 29.12.11 Annex.P12 passed by the Collector Umariya whereby without deciding the application of the petitioner filed to permit him to join the proceedings, the order of the Tehsildar dated 4.6.09 Anex.P/3 was affirmed. It is apparent from the record that such proceeding was initiated by respondent No.7 under section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code ( in short the Code) for demarcation of some land adjoining to the petitioners and respondent No.6 and in such proceeding the petitioner was not impleaded as party. On consideration, the Tehsildar has allowed such application ...
Smt. Mithla Prajapati Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
W.P.NO.19945/2012 03-12-2012. Smt. Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner who is working as Hostel Superintendent in the Girls Hostel has filed this writ petition challenging the order of suspension Annexure P-1 dated 12-11-2012. Considering the fact that the suspension is mainly challenged on the ground that the allegations for suspending the petitioner as are indicated in the oder are not correct, it is thought appropriate to direct the petitioner to submit an appeal before the competent authority and it would be for the competent authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner and decide the same after taking note of the explanation given by the petitioner with regard to the allegations made in the order of suspension. As the petitioner has already submitted appeal vide Annexure P-6 to the Collector of the district concerned, for the present without entering into controveRs.on merit, Collector concerned, respondent no.3 is directed to consider and dec...
Kishori Lal Maravi Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
Writ Appeal No.1262 o03. 12/2012 Shri M.K.Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Kumaresh Pathak, Dy. Advocate General, for the State. This appeal is directed against an order dated 08/10/2012 in Writ Petition No.16965/2012, by which writ petition preferred by the appellant against the transfer order dated 20/07/2012, transferring the appellant in the same capacity from Khandwa to Barwani, was dismissed. However, liberty was granted by the Single Bench to take recouRs.of the departmental remedies available to the appellant. Though the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that within a period of four yeaRs.appellant has been transferred 4 times. But it appears that the aforesaid contention is misconceived. The appellant was earlier posted at Dhar on 20/08/2007. On 15/09/2008, he was assigned additional charge of Burhanpur District Khandwa. Thereafter on 28/09/2011, he was sent to Kolkata for training and during the period of training on 20/07/2012 he was transferred to Barwani,...
Syed Aasif Ali Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
1...W.A.No.1271 of 2012 Syed Aasif Ali State of M.P.& ORS.03.12.2012 Ms.Smita Arora, Counsel for the appellant. Shri Kumresh Pathak, Dy. A.G.for the respondents. At the out set learned counsel for the appellant submitted that she may be permitted to withdraw this appeal with liberty to take recouRs.of departmental remedies as available to the appellant and directed by the Single Bench on 27.7.2012 in W.P.No.11154/12. Prayer made by the appellant is not opposed by the other side. Hence, it is allowed. This petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed. No order as to costs. (Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt. Vimla Jain) Judge Judge vj 2...W.A.No.1271 of 2012 Syed Aasif Ali State of M.P.& ORS.03.12.2012...
Jafar Khan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Dec-03-2012
1 W.P.No.20170/2012 Jafar Khan versus State of M.P.& ORS.03.12.2012 Shri A.M.Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Uttam Maheshwari for the petitioner. Shri Saleem Rehman learned counsel for the respondent Wakf Board. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that though the term of the committee appointed for managing the respondent no.3 Wakf Board has expired and the petitioner has filed an application on 10.11.2012 before the Wakf Board requesting them to appoint a new committee, the Wakf Board has not done so till date as a result of which the functioning of the Wakf is effected. The learned counsel for the respondent Wakf Board, on advance copy, submits that action on the application filed by the petitioner shall be taken expeditiously in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. In view of the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for the respondent Wakf Board, the petition filed by the petitioner is dis...