Patna Court February 2004 Judgments
Ram Chandra Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-16-2004
R.N. Prasad, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer in the year 1970. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in 1978. In 1986 he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer. He retired from service on 31.7.1999. A proceeding was initiated against him vide letter dated 2,11.1999 (Annexure-2) under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (in short 'the Rules') with respect to the incident/omissions and commissions of an act in the years 1987-88 to 1989-90. Charge was furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner made a demand of the relevant documents but in spite of the demands those documents were not supplied to him. However, he filed show cause against the charge. The Inquiry authority, after inquiry, submitted report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority awarded two punishments, i.e., withholding of 50% pension and also withholding of 50% amount of gratuity under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules vide letter dated 21.7.2003 (Annexur...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Chandrika Prasad Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
1. These cases remind the Court and likewise any educated person, to 'value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture'. These words are not of this Court but taken from Sub-clause 5 of Article 51A, from the chapter on Fundamental Duties, in The Constitution of India. This case is about neglect by the State of ancient monuments and sites. Again, the State needs to be reminded of what ought to be the State policy in this regard, as directed by the Constitution. It is given in Article 49. The subject is : Protection of Monuments and Places and Objects of National Importance. The text of this article reads: 'It shall be the obligation of the State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or historic interest, declared by or under law made by Parliament, to be of national importance, from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the case may be.'2. Exchanging pleadings and counter-pleadings and filing counter-affidavits on behalf...
Tag this Judgment!Bikrama Thakur and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-13-2004
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi for the petitioners, Mr. Abbas Haider, JC to GP No. II for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and Dr. Alok Kumar Sinha for respondent Nos. 6 to 9. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.2.2001 (Annexure-1), passed by the learned Collector of the district of Saran at Chapra in Misc. Petition No. 24/95 Tapeshwar Thakur and Ors. v. Sitaram Thakur and Ors. in purported exercise of powers under Section 21 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Homestead Tenancy Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby the revision petition at the instance of respondent Nos. 6 to 9 herein has been allowed, and the settlement of the lands in question in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled. According to the writ petition, it relates to plot No. 684, appertaining to khata No. 146, covering an area of 71/2 decimals= 2 kathas, situate at village Shekhpura, district Saran. It is further stated in the writ petition that the total area of t...
Tag this Judgment!John. SeraphIn Vs. State Bank of India and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
R.S. Garg, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.The facts in nutshell are that petitioner working with the State Bank of India, in accordance with Annexure-4, the policy dated 29.12.2000, proposing voluntary retirement scheme submitted his application for voluntary retirement. It appears that certain explanation etc. were called from the petitioner as he was found involved in some irregularity with M/s. Port Steel Complex (P.) Ltd. By communication dated 2.3.2001 (annexure 1) the petitioner was informed that he was ineligible because exoneration order in the case of M/s. Port Steel Complex (P.) Ltd. at Boring Road was pending for want of Corporate Centre's concurrence.2. The petitioner came to this Court and the respondents on notice filed their show cause. The respondents submits that in accordance with Annexure-4 providing the criteria, the petitioner was ineligible because an explanation was sought for from the petitioner and final orders in the matter were not passed. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajdhani Arms Ammunition Dealer Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-12-2004
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 12th of August, 2002 passed by the State Government whereby duplicate licence No. 3 of 1991 in Form XII has been cancelled and the petitioner has been directed to deposit all the arms and ammunition in the shop or at nearest Police Station.2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner holds licence in Form XI and XII, In the year 1991, it was issued a duplicate licence in Form XII which contained the entry of 5000 cartridges for non-prohibited rifle and 5000 for revolvers and pistols. According to the respondents, petitioner got it interpolated to 25000 and 15000 respectively. Accordingly, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner as to why its licence in Form. XII be not cancelled. Petitioner filed its show cause, inter alia, contending that no interpolation has been made by it and, in fact, the increase in the number of cartridges has been in pursuance ...
Tag this Judgment!Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated January 22, 2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur in Reference Case No. 2 of 2002 (Annexure 1) whereby the petition filed by the workman objecting to the representation of the management by the legal practitioners, has been allowed and petitioner has been directed to be represented by the Legal Practitioner.2. Facts lie in a narrow compass. The State Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court, Muzaffarpur:'Whether 10 point demand of Union of Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan raised before Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. Industrial Area Hajipur is justified? If yes, what relief they are entitled to?' 3. The reference so made by the State Government was placed for consideration before the Labour Court on July ...
Tag this Judgment!Bihar Vyavsayik Sangharsh Morcha and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-11-2004
R.S. Dhavan, C.J. and Navin Sinha, J.1. This matter was filed as a Public Interest Litigation. The issues as were raised in the petition are reproduced :'(i) Whether the inaction of Respondents are violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 20 of the Constitution of India or not in not providing healthy atmosphere for the development of trade and business in the State of Bihar?(ii) Whether the inaction of Respondents in not providing safety for the life of the businessmen and their agents are unreasonable, unjust, arbitrary and mala fide or not?(iii) Whether the Respondents are duty bound to provide safety and healthy atmosphere for the proper development of the State or not?(iv) Whether the Respondents are duty bound to maintain law and order properly or not?'2. This perhaps explains the excitement at the time when the petition was filed. The reliefs sought are :'That the petition is directed for the issuance of writ, order or direction to stop criminal events a...
Tag this Judgment!Amar Satyam Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
1. In this writ application, prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the communication dated 20-2-2003 (Annexure-7) of the District Magistrate, Khagaria whereby he has informed the Principal of S.K.M. Medical College, Muzaffarpur that the petitioner who is studying in the said college, happens to be a member of the backward class by birth and the certificate issued by the office of the District Welfare Officer that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste has been cancelled.2. Facts lie in a narrow compass, Petitioner happens to be the son of one Chandra Shekhar Prasad Yadav and according to him his father and very cordial relation with Biranchi Das, who had only two daughters and for spiritual gain and continuance of clan, said Biranchi Das expressed his desire to adopt a son with the consent of his wife which was agreed to by the petitioner's natural father Chandra Shekhar Prasad Yadav because he had more than one sons, in consultation with his wife. As agreed, petitioner was give...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Jharkhand and ors. Vs. Bihar State Forest Development Cor ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-10-2004
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State Jharkhand feeling aggrieved by an order dated 15 January, 2004 delivered in CWJC No. 939 of 2003: The Bihar State Forest Development Corporation v. Union of India and Ors.2. The Bihar State Forest Development Corporation is incorporated as Government Company, in effect, under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. A State Government Company is virtually seeking in the High Court's prerogative writ jurisdiction on a certiorari action, in effect a certificate, that the State of Jharkhand and the Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation cannot, under the law, trade in Kendu leaves and other minor forest produce unless the process of division of the assets and liabilities of the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation has been finalised. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the Court's attention has been drawn to a restraint order, preventing this Corporation from carrying on its business. Thus, the present Letters Patent ...
Tag this Judgment!Bihar State Electricity Board and ors. Vs. Brij Mohan Prasad and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Feb-06-2004
Nagendra Rai and R.S. Garg, JJ.1. Letters Patent Appeal No. 94 of 1998 has been filed against the judgment dated 19th December, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 5569 of 1996 by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 against the order of his dismissal, and writ petitioner-respondent No. 2 against the order in reduction of pension has been allowed.2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1476 of 1999 has been filed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 10745 of 1998 whereby the writ application filed by one of the private respondents, namely, Brij Mohan Prasad has been allowed and a direction has been issued to pay his retiral dues with an interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the remaining admitted dues from due date till the payment is made and further a cost of Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand) has been imposed.3. The factual matrix are that at the relevant time the respondent No. 1, Brij Mohan Prasad, was posted as an Admi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »