Madhya Pradesh Court September 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.
Juggi Lal Sahu Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
W.P.No.15683/2012 (Juggi Lal Sahu versus State of MP and otheRs.21.09.2012 Heard Shri Mahesh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the fact that the respondents are not granting permission to the petitioner to construct his house over the land purchased by him of which he has also obtained diversion from the competent authority. It is submitted that in such circumstances the respondents No.2 and 3 be directed to permit the petitioner to construct his house. From a perusal of the documents and averments made in the petition specifically Annexure P/5 dated 27.09.2003, it is apparent that the petitioner's request for permission for construction on the land in question had been rejected by the competent authority respondent No.3 in view of the fact that the land in question falls within 18 meters of the land that has been earmarked for a road in the housing scheme and this order ...
Smt. Nilima Das Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
1 W.P.No.15723/12 (s) 21/09/12 Shri Devendra Gangrade, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Adv.for the respondents. Petitioner is working as an 'Asstt. Teacher' in Prathmik Shala Chopna-3 and by the impugned order dated 12/07/12, she has been transferred to Prathmik Shala Lakhipur in the same district of Betul. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on the ground that if petitioner is transferred, then there will be no teacher in the school in question as there are only two posts of teacher. One post is lying vacant and transfer of the petitioner would create a void in the institute. That apart, pointing out various personal inconveniences, challenge is made to the order of transfer. Shri Rajesh Tiwari points out that petitioner has been transferred on administrative consideration and, therefore, on the grounds canvassed, interference be not made. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the grounds rais...
Smt.Vimla Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
Smt. Vimla Singh versus State of MP and otheRs.21.09.2012. Shri V.D.S.Chouhan for the petitioner. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Government Advocate, for the State on advance notice. Petitioner is working as a Patwari in Patwari Halka No.11, 12 and 14, Tehsil Katangi, District Balaghat. It is the case of the petitioner that vide order-dated 13.7.2012 Annexure P/1 petitioner was transferred from Katangi to Halka No.21, Baihar. The State Minister, Incharge of District Balaghat recommended for amending the transfer order of the petitioner vide Annexure P/2, on 13.7.2012. Accordingly, vide order-dated 31.8.2012 Annexure P/3, the order of transfer was modified, as such it is stated that an executed order of transfer is cancelled, which is unsustainable. It is further pointing out that vide order-dated 13.7.2012, petitioner was transferred from Halka No.47 Katangi to Patwari Halka No.21, Baihar. This executed order is not being challenged by the impugned action. Accordingly, contending that an execut...
Harendra Singh Rajput Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
W.A.No.1068/2012 Harendra Singh Rajput State of M.P.& others 21.9.2012 Shri Devendra Gangrade, counsel for appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.A.G., for respondents. This appeal is directed against an order dated 29.8.2012 in W.P.No.12061/2012, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant against his transfer order Annexure P-4 dated 13.7.2012 transferring appellant from Gram Panchayat Baroda, Janpad Panchayat Batiyagarh to Gram Panchayat Badagaon, Janpad Panchayat Pathariya, was dismissed. It is stated by the appellant that the transfer order is in violation of the transfer policy framed under sub-rule (7) of Rule 6 of the M.P.Panchayat Services (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditionot Service) Rules, 2011, so the transfer order may be quashed. This question has already been considered by this Bench in Rajendra Kumar Shiv versus State of M.P.& others (W.A.No.1035/2012) decided on 10.9.2012 and considering the legal position it has been held that though the rules are p...
Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bhagwat Singh Thakur
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
..1.. W.A.No.1075/11 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR (M.P.) Writ Appeal No.1075 o1. Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Through, Managing Director O/o Habibganj, Bhopal (MP) 2. Assistant Labour and Personnel Officer, Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Habibganj, Bhopal (M.P.) .Appellants Versus 1. Bhagwat Singh Thakur S/o Shri Shivdas Singh Thakur, aged about 48 years, Conductor-Piparia Depot R/o Behind RNA School, Sardar Ward, Piparia Tahsil Piparia, District Hoshangabad 2. State of Madhya Pradesh, through its Secretary, Ministry (Department) of Transport Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal Respondents Writ Appeal No.1077/2011 1. Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Through, Managing Director O/o Habibganj, Bhopal (MP) 2. Assistant Labour and Personnel Officer, Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, Head Office, Habibganj, Bhopal (M.P.) .Appellants Vs.1. Bhartiya Parivahan Karmachari Mahasangh, Bhopal (M.P.) through it's Vi...
Suresh Chandra Ratre Vs. the Director
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR. Writ Petition No.2137/2010 Suresh Chandra Ratre. Vs The Director, Malaria Research Centre and another. PRESENT : Honble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi.J.Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for respondents. ORDER (17.9.2012) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order by which the claim made by the petitioner for reinstatement in services has been dismissed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as CGIT for brevity).on the ground that the evidence was not rightly assessed by the Tribunal. The fact that the Scheme in which the petitioner was appointed was still continued, was not taken note of and holding that such a Scheme was closed and the work of Lab Technician was over, therefore petitioner was terminated such a claim of petitioner is wrongly rejected by the CGIT. It is contended that th...
Smt. Ragni Sharma Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
Smt. Rogni Sharma versus State & ORS.W.P.No.8101/2012 21/09/2012 Shri S.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the Intervener. In view of subsequent developments that have taken place, it is stated by Shri Ajeet Singh that not this writ petition is rendered infructuous. Petitioner by filing the application for amendment wants to challenge the subsequent development as is evident from Annexure-P20. However, during the couRs.of hearing of this writ petition, it has transpired that in pursuance to the Annexure-P20, selection process has been completed and petitioner has participated in the selection process. If that be so, petitioner has no right to challenge the subsequent development. Having participated in the selection process, as petitioner is not selected, petitioner should take recouRs.to the remedy available under law before the competent authority. At this stage, Shri S.P.Mishra, learned counsel wants to seek instructions. Prayer allow...
Smt. Janakrani Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
W.P.No.15508/2012 (Janakrani Vs.State of M.P.& Ors.) 21.09.2012 Heard Shri S.S.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 05.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar in appeal No.109&89/11-12 filed by the petitioner against the order of his removal under Section 40 of the M.P.Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue).Panna and affirmed by the Collector, Panna. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the impugned order the Commissioner has rejected the application for ad- interim stay filed by the petitioner while admitting the appeal, which is contrary to law. It is submitted that the petitioner is entitled for an interim order in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. From a perusal of the im...
Smt. Asha Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
Asha Singh versus State & ORS.W.P.No.15839/2012 21/09/2012 Shri Shreyas Pandit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents on payment of P.F within one week, returnable in four weeks. Considering the fact that services of the petitioner have been terminated on various allegations as is evident from Annexure-P5 without conducting an enquiry as required under Rule 7 of the M.P.Panchayat Service (Appeal & Revision) Rules and keeping in view the requirement of law as laid down in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman Vs. State of M.P. & Ors, I.L.R. (2008) M.P.1050 , action of the respondents seems to be unsustainable. In view of the above, operation of the order dated 18.8.2011 passed by the Collector District-Satna and order dated 15.9.2012 passed by the Upper Commissioner Rewa shall remain stayed. Certified Copy as per rules. (Rajendra Menon) Judge nd...
Ramasray Prasad Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
Writ Petition No.15252/2012 21/09/2012 Shri Mukesh Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioneRs.Shri S.M.Lal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents-State on advance copy. Heard on the question of admission and interim relief. Stating that the petitioners are also similarly placed persons that of Dharam Pal Chaurasiya and otheRs.who have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2858/2005 (S).which was disposed of finally vide order dated 23.11.2007 the petitioners are also entitled to be given the benefit of order passed by coordinate bench of this Court at Indore in W.P.No.6773/2006 (S) (Smt. Prerna W/o Shri Promod Koranne versus State of M.P.& otheRs.decided on 26.1.2007, the petitioners have prayed for similar directions. It is seen that the aforesaid writ petition was decided in the following manner: 17. Consequently these petitions are allowed. The petitioners are entitled to derive the benefit of second Kramonnati according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the ci...
- ‹ Prev
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 34
- 35
- 36
- 37
- 38
- Next ›
- Last »