Patna Court March 2004 Judgments
Lalan Prasad Rai and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-23-2004
R.S. Garg, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. These seven petitioners have a common complaint; according to them, some of their juniors probably blue-eyed-baby of the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali at Hajipur have already been promoted but the petitioners probably the step children of the said Officer have not been promoted. Not only that, even their representations are not being taken up for consideration because for the reasons best known to the said District Superintendent of Education, he does not find time to take up the matters of these persons.3. It appears that every Officer in this State is required to be informed by the Court by a writ that he has been appointed and posted at a particular place to work and not to shirk the work. This Court is infested with thousands of such petitions where because of the non-action or inaction on the part of the Government Officers, be he a Secretary of the Department or a Circle Officer, a Civil Surgeon or Super...
Tag this Judgment!Mohd. Rashid Alam @ Md. Rashid and ors. Vs. Bibi Roshan Jahan and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J.1. Both the appeals arise out of a common judgment, are with respect to the same subject matter, and are being disposed of by a common judgment. The same are directed against the judgment and decree dated. 23.6.2000, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge XI, Patna, in Succession Case No. 125 of 1996 and Succession Case No. 137 of 1996.2. Misc. Appeal No. 396 of 2000 arises out of Succession Case No. 125 of 1996 (Bibi Roshan Jahan v. Estae of deceased Md. Serajuddin Khan and Ors.), praying for succession certificate in the name of Bibi Rohsan with respect to the estate of Md. Serajuddin Khan. According to her case, she married Md. Serajuddin Khan on 10.10.1990, on which date she was a widow and Md. Serajuddin was widower. He was then working as a driver in the Bihar State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), retired with effect from 1.4.1994, and died on 8.4.1995. The couple have had two minor children who are the applicant...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
R.S. Garg, J.1. Shri Bimal Kumar, Sen or counsel with Shri Dineshwar Mishra opened his argument firstly referring to the affidavit dated 18.12.2003 with which order of the Supreme Court has been annexed. After taking me through the order passed by the Supreme Court he submitted that he be allowed to refer to the order dated 22.9.2003 passed by this Court. After taking me through some portion of that order Shri Bimal Kumar, Senior Counsel made his submission that in the proceeding dated 22.9.2003 this Court had recorded a finding that on the date Mr. G.S. Kang has passed the order, the said petitioner had not completed ten years of service. This Court requested Mr. Bimal Kumar Senior Counsel to read that finding from the order dated 22.9.2003. After taking me through number of paragraphs learned senior counsel read internal page 11 of the order that reads as under:--'Unfortunately Annexure-1 did not take into consideration the observations made by this Court rather the directions issu...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Krishna Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-22-2004
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Vinod Kanth for the petitioner, and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned SC No. III for the respondents. This writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to set aside the order dated 11.6.2001 (Annexure-3), whereby respondent No. 2 (P.N. Narayanan, Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Public Health and Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna), has directed that the petitioner's tender to lift scrap materials from the godowns of the different divisions of the Public Health and Engineering Department of the State Government is confined to the divisions of Sasaram, Bhabhua, Sitamarhi and Patna (Mechanical). It is further stated therein that validity of the tender has expired and the balance of the materials shall be advertised for auction separately, if necessary.2. The State Government had issued a tender notice dated 26.2.1994 another tender notice of the same date (Annexure-1 and 2 respectively to the petitioner's previous writ petition bearing CWJC No. 3...
Tag this Judgment!Arbind Prasad and ors., Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. In all these writ applications, common questions of law with little variation in fact arise and as such, they are being disposed of together.2. Prayer of the petitioners in these writ applications are to quash Memo No. 1988 dated 20th of December, 2001 of the District Sub-Registrar, East Champaran, whereby it had directed that documents presented by the document writers having licence shall only be admitted for registration. Further prayer made by the petitioners is to quash the advertisement, inviting applications for grant of licence as document writer, and apprentice document writer. Their further prayer is that no licence as document writer or apprentice document writer be granted till the number of document writers is assessed in the light of the decision of the Inspector General of Registration as contained in its letter dated 6th of August, 2002.3. Petitioners, are document writers engaged in the profession of writing documents, conveyance etc. and...
Tag this Judgment!Punyark Credit and Investment (P.) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-19-2004
Mridula Mishra, J.1. The application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the criminal prosecution in Special Case No. 799 (M)/84 including the order dated 12-12-2002, passed by the Special Judge, Economic Offences, Patna, refusing to drop the criminal prosecution.2. Petitioner No. 1 namely Punyark Credit & Investment Private Limited is a registered Private Limited Company with the office of the Registrar of Companies, Bihar and Jharkhand. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the Directors of the Company petitioner No. 1. Case No. 799M/84 was filed by the Registrar of the Companies against the petitioners on 26-7-1984 before the Court, Economic Offences, Patna with the allegation that according to the provisions of Section 220 of the Companies Act, 1956, the Company and its directors are under the statutory obligation to file with the Registrar of the Companies three copies of the balance sheet and profit and loss account in prescribed f6rm duly placed in the annual general meeti...
Tag this Judgment!Umesh Chandra Sinha Vs. Bihar State Ware Housing Corporation and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-18-2004
R.S. Garg, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner was posted as incharge of Naugachhia branch of the respondent, Bihar State Ware Housing Corporation. During the said period certain goods which were stored in ware house were not ensured, therefore, the goods worth Rs. 18,27,512.52 p. suffered damage in floods. He was subjected to an enquiry and ultimately by order dated 12.6.1996 he was terminated from service. The said order was challenged in CWJC No. 7537 of 1999. The High Court allowed the writ application and required the respondent-Corporation to proceed in accordance with law. The order dated 12.6.1996 was set aside and the petitioner was reinstated with effect from 31.7.1997.3. In accordance with the directions issued by this Court on 31.3.1997 the department observed that an enquiry be held against the petitioner. The petitioner was placed under suspension, the enquiry continued. The petitioner again came to this Court in CWJC No. 4845 of 1997 which was...
Tag this Judgment!Tilkeshwar Singh Alias Tilkeshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-17-2004
Nagendra Rai, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 13-7-2001 passed by the Assistant Survey Settlement Officer, Rosera in Title Suit No. 143 of 1998 entertaining the suit under Section 106 of the Bihar Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed by respondent No. 5 after condoning the delay of 11 years and few months and subsequent order dated 29-1-2003 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner raising objection regarding maintainability of the suit as the same is barred by limitation on the ground that he has no power to review the earlier order.2. Before the learned single Judge the petitioner relied upon a judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Kunti Kumari alias Manju Singh v. State of Bihar, reported in 1998 (3) PLJR 490, in support of the submission that the settlement authority has no power to condone the delay in filing the suit filed under Section 106 of the Act as Section 5 of the Limitation A...
Tag this Judgment!Bihar State Digambar JaIn Tirth Kshetra Committee and anr. Vs. State o ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-15-2004
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating a proceeding for contempt as also for punishment of opposite party Nos. 2 to 5 for disobedience of the decree dated 18.8.1930 passed by the Subordinate Judge-11, Patna in Title-Suit No. 64 of 1926.2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that on an action brought by Digambar Jains i.e. Title Suit No. 64 of 1926, Subordinate Judge-II, Patna granted decree dated 18.8.1930 in the following words :--'Issue No. II. On the findings arrived at in connection with other issues the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the Digambar Jain have a free and unrestricted right of worship according to their own mode in the Jalmandir and Samavasaran Mandil without any interference whatsoever by any Swetambar Jain. They are further entitled to an order for the removal of the Swetambari image from the Jalmandir and also to perpetual in...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrika Sao Vs. Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Mar-10-2004
R.S. Garg, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner who is working as Senior Selection Grade Assistant has come to this Court seeking promotion to the post of Manager (Sectional Officer). According to the petitioner the Board in its meeting dated 4.12.1999, created certain regulations and in accordance with the same it is obliged to give the promotional benefits to the number of the persons. The petitioner says that his case is not being considered on the ground that the regulations framed by the Marketing Board have yet not been approved by the State Government therefore the petitioner would not be entitled to any promotion while Dilip Kumar and Sandip Ray have been given promotion. The respondents in their counter submitted that unless the regulations are approved by the State Government through the Bureau of Public Enterprises the petitioner cannot be promoted. On 16.12.2003 this Court finding the present to be a case of discrimination required the respondent Ma...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »