Madhya Pradesh Court July 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.
Chhathilal Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.8926/2012 (Chhathilal Patel versus State of M.P.& Ors.) 09.07.2012 Heard Shri S.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner, who has appeared in the examination for selection of Shiksha Karmi, submits that the issue regarding increase of qualifying marks by an executive instruction has already been decided by a Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.1515/09(s).inspite of which the respondents are not modifying the mark-sheet issued to the petitioner or taking into consideration the decision rendered by Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.1515/09(s).However, it is apparent that the petitioner has directly approached this court without filing any representation before the authorities. In view of th aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a representation before the authorities alongwith a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition ...
Anil Pandey Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
09.07.2012. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal for the petitioner. Shri B.P.Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State, on advance notice. Petitioner is working as Sub Registrar in the office of Registration, Sub Division II, Jawahar Chowk, Bhopal. By the impugned order passed on 25.6.2012, allegedly by the Collector, Bhopal petitioner is transferred to the office of Registration, Sub District I, Pari Bazar, Bhopal. It is the case of the petitioner the Collector of District Bhopal is not competent enough to transfer the petitioner even on the pretext of re-distribution of work and as the order is passed by respondent No.3, who is not competent, the impugned action is unsustainable. It is stated that respondent No.2 Inspector General of Registration and Stamps is the competent authority to take action in the matter and the impugned action by the Collector is unsustainable. Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the State, points out that the order is only an order of shifting the petitioner from o...
Manish JaIn Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.8453/2012 09/07/2012 Shri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Challenging the show cause notice dated 26.5.2012 directing the petitioner to show cause as to why his services should not be terminated and appointment cancelled, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner is working as Patwari and pointing out various irregularities in his appointment, a show cause notice has been issued to him. Challenging the show cause notice, petitioner has rushed to this Court. When the question was posted to the petitioner as to why the show cause notice is challenged, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner will be required to file reply to the show cause notice and, therefore, challenge the action again, therefore, to circumvent all these positions, this writ petition is filed. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Once a show cause notice is issued to the petitioner, he is required to submit reply to the sho...
Naresh Sagar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.6485 / 2012 (Naresh Sagar ..Vs.State of M.P.& otheRs.09-07-2012 Shri Prahlad Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Shrivastava, learned panel lawyer, for the State/respondents. Heard on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the respondent/authorities against the respondents No.5 to 8 regarding issuance of false caste certificates to them. Admittedly, the matter is pending before the Sub Divisional Officer, Jabalpur. In the circumstances, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Sub Divisional Officer, Jabalpur or the High Power Committee constituted by the State for initiating action in accordance with law. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner does so, the concerned authority shall look into the matter and after hearing all concerned, shall decide the same expeditiously by passing a reaso...
Smt. Sunita Mishra Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.9653/2012 09/07/2012 Shri S.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner is working as Staff NuRs.in Community Health Centre Hanumana District-Rewa. By the impugned order dated 15.6.2012, petitioner has been transferred to Community Health Centre Naigarhi District-Rewa. It is pointed out that the petitioner is shown to have been transferred at her own cost, even though no application or request has been submitted by the petitioner. Inter- alia contending that on the basis of some forgery committed, petitioner is being transferred. Considering the fact that the allegations are made by the petitioner with regard to forgery in submission of application requesting for her transfer, the Commissioner Respondent No.2 is directed to conduct an enquiry with regard to the allegations made by the petitioner and pass appropriate ordeRs.Accordingly, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order along with a detailed representation within one week f...
Suraj Soni Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.9288/12 (Suraj Soni versus State of MP and otheRs.09.07.2012 Heard Shri Abhay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging inaction on the part of the Police authorities on the representation filed by the petitioner regarding harassment. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/police authorities to look into the grievance of the petitioner and deal with the same in accordance with law. However, this direction shall not in any manner prejudice the right of the police authorities to investigate into the matter not shall it absolve the petitioner to his obligation to co-operate in the investigation and furnish information to the police authorities as and when required. However, it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore the police authority would be at liberty to examine the ...
Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
R.P.No.513/2012 09/07/2012 Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. On 24.11.2010, this Court passed an order in W.P.No.11691/2008(s) directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of Kramonnati in accordance with circular dated 19.4.1999 and pass appropriate ordeRs.Grievance of the petitioner is that even though his case has been considered but the consideration has not been made in accordance with mandate of the circular Annexure-A2 dated 25.4.2000 and fixation of the petitioner in the appropriate pay scale in accordance with the aforesaid circular has not been done. Accordingly, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case after taking note of the circular Annexure-A2, petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the matter was heard, petitioner could not point out this circular to this court and the mandate of the circular is not considered. Consideri...
Vikramaditya College Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
Writ Petition No.5376/2012 9.7.2012 Shri Pushpendra Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Shri Puneet Shroti, Government Advocate, for the State/ respondent nos.1 and 2. Shri Tabrez Sheikh, Advocate, for respondent no.3. Petitioner no.1 is Vikramaditya College, Bhopal, which is being run by petitioner no.2 Deepti Prabha Shiksha Avam Jan Kalyan Samiti, Bhopal. Petitioner no.1 conducts various courses, including a three year couRs.of Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA).It is also affiliated to respondent no.3 Barkatullah University, Bhopal. For the academic session 2008-09 respondent no.2 Commissioner of Higher Education, Bhopal, granted No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the petitioner for BBA fiRs.year as a result of which the students were admitted. But the not for BBA second year academic session 2009-10 and BBA third year academic session 2010-11 have been declined by respondent no.2 on the ground that applications for the same were not submitted within the stipulated period. It...
Ashok Kumar Patel Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
1 W.P.No.4671/2012 Ashok Kumar Patel & Anot versus State of M.P.& ORS.09.07.2012 Heard Shri Sushil Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 7.3.2012 by which his application for stay in Case No.7/A-89/11-12 has been rejected by the Collector on the ground that an interim order can be passed only after perusing the record. It is apparent that the aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner before the Collector, Jabalpur against the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer under section 92 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 is still pending decision and as is evident from the impugned order, the appellant has a right to renew the application for stay after the record of the case is received by the appellate authority. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order at this stage. The petition, filed by the petit...
Tapasya Upadhyay Vs. Board of Secondary
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jul-09-2012
W.P.No.12889/11 (Tapasya Upadhyay versus Board of Secondary) 06.07.2012 Shri Praveen Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri M. Pateriya, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner has filed this petition alleging that the petitioner has obtained less marks in the subjects of English and Hindi in 12th Class Examination of the year 2010-2011 in which the petitioner had appeared and in such circumstances she is seeking revaluation. The learned counsel for the respondent per contra submits that there is no provision for revaluation of answer sheet in the regulation and also in view of the decision of the Division Bench rendered in the case of M.P.Board of Secondary Education and another versus Ku. Vinita Rupra, 1998 (1) MPLJ 595 relief sought for by the petitioner is not permissible. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Ku. Vinita Rupra (Supra) wherein it has been held that there is no...
- ‹ Prev
- 64
- 65
- 66
- 67
- 68
- 70
- 71
- 72
- 73
- 74
- Next ›
- Last »