Court : Patna
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated January 3, 2001 (Annexure-1) whereby the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of dismissal from service as a measure of punishment after the departmental inquiry. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated May 16, 2002 (Annexure-1) whereby the appeal preferred against the aforesaid order has been dismissed.2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted as the Manager of the Buxar branch of the Bank of India. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was served with the following charges.Charge No. I.(a) That, by abusing his official position, he unduly accommodated certain customers causing wrongful gains to the borrowers, completely disregarding the normal care/precautions required to be taken by the Bank in as much as:(b) He sanctioned /enhanced cash credit limits in the accounts of J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is the sole plaintiff in Partition Suit No. 457/1998 and is aggrieved by order dated 22.7.2003 passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge-III, Vaishali, by which he had rejected part of the petition for amendment of his plaint. The petitioner sought five amendments in the plaint out of which amendment numbers 1 and 3 were allowed whereas amendment numbers 2, 4 and 5 with respect to Paragraph-6 (facts), Paragraph-14 (valuation) and Paragraph-15 (relief) were rejected.3. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that in Paragraph-6 of his plaint the amendment sought is only for adding a word 'Hissa batakar' and for substituting the words 'Ko Ataikar diya' with 'Ke naam Atainama likhwa diya'. He further contended that in Paragraph-14 of the plaint he wanted to add the valuation of the suit as well as the Court fees payable thereon, according to the addition of relief. The learned counsel for the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. Initially; the prayer of the petitioners in this writ application was to quash the communication dated 29-9-2003 (Annexure 4) whereby the Chancellor of the Universities had directed the Vice-Chancellor of the Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University to withhold the declaration of the result of election to the Syndicate to be held in the meeting of the Senate on 25-9-2003. By way of amendment the prayer of the petitioners is to quash the order dated 8-112003 whereby the Chancellor had issued direction to the Vice-Chancellor of Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University to announce the result of the election of the members of the Syndicate by excluding the votes of Dean of Students Welfare and Proctor.2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioners are teachers In the Department of Zoology in Bhim Rao Ambedkar Bihar University (hereinafter referred to as the University). A communique dated 5-9-2003 (Annexure 1) was is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.M. Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 14.6.1999 of the Director, Health Services, Bihar, Patna, contained in Annexure-3, communicating the Government decision cancelling the order contained in Memo No. 811 (11) dated 2.12.1994 accepting his voluntary retirement and dismissing him from service with effect from 1.10.1994, and, has further sought for direction to the Respondents for payment of his retiral dues including pension, gratuity and leave encashment with effect from the date of acceptance of his voluntary retirement i.e. 2.12.1994.2. In short, relevant facts are that on 6.4.1960 the petitioner was appointed as Superior Field Worker in Health Department and in the year 1968 he was adjusted on the post of Basic Health Worker at Simari Bakhtiarpur Block. He was transferred from time to time and ultimately applied for voluntary retirement while posted at Primary Health Centre, Murliganj, Saharsa, which was accepted by Health ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.M. Prasad, J. 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for quashing the communication dated 8.5.2004 (Annexure-6) issued by the Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Bhagalpur (Respondent No. 5) declaring that the petitioner has ceased to be a voter of Traders Constituency No. 2, and, as such, . ceased to be the Chairman of the Market Committee, and, further, for quashing the consequential direction of the Director (Marketing), Bihar State Agriculture Produce Market Board, Patna (Respondent No. 3) dated 22.5.2004 (Annexure-8) delegating the power of counter- signing cheques in the Assistant. Director, Agriculture Marketing, Bhagalpur.2. According to the case of the petitioner in every Market Committee constituted under the provisions of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and the Rules framed thereunder two members are elected members from the Traders Constituency. For the purpose of election of trader member, voters list f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Nagendra Rai, ACJ, R.S. Garg and S.N. Hussain, JJ.1. This matter has been placed before this Bench on the basis of the order of reference made by one of us (R.S. Garg. J).2. The question for determination in this case is as to whether the ganja is a narcotic drug or psychotropic substances or not. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. The State of Bihar, reported in 2004 (2) East Cr C 228 (Pat) : 2004 (3) PLJR 249 has held that ganja does not fall within the definitions of the narcotic drug and psychotropic substance and possession of ganja is not an offence punishable under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). When this judgment was relied upon by the counsel appearing for the petitioner before one of us (R.S. Garg, J). His Lordship doubted the correctness of the aforesaid decision and has made reference and that is how the matter has been placed before us.3. The Act, has been enact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners who are heirs of Defendant No. 1 of Title Suit No. 181/1988. The said suit was filed by plaintiff-O.P. Mo. I for declaration of 1/3rd share in the suit property and also for declaration that the sale-deed dated 29.5.1981 was collusive, inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff and also for a declaration that the survey entries in the name of the defendants were null and void.2. The aforesaid suit was decided by Additional Munsif-II Saharsa, by judgment dated 30.6.1997, the operative portion of which reads as follows :-- 'That the suit is decreed on contest with cost. The 1/3rd share of the plaintiff from the suit land is declared. The sale-deed in favour of the 3rd party is collusive, illegal and inoperative and Khatigan entry in favour of 3rd party is collusive, inoperative and illegal and same is not binding upon the plaintiff.'However, inspite of the aforesaid operative portion of the judgment (Annexure-2 to the Sup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Chandra Mohan Prasad, J.1. The appeal is against the judgment dated 19-5-1992 of the 1st Additional Session Judge, Begusarai, passed in Sessions Case No. 13 of 1988/6 of 1989, whereby the appellant Dinesh Chaudhary has been convicted under Sections 436,452,380 and 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and respectively sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years. R.I. for 5 years R.I. for 5 years and R.I. for 1 year. Each of the remaining two appellants Ram Nath Chaudhary and Jugal Chaudhary has been convicted under Section 436 read with Section 34 and Section 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and respectively sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and R.I. for 5 years.2. The prosecution case as per the FIR alleged by the informant Joga Devi (P.W. 4) on 20-2-1987 at 2.30 p.m. at Bhagwanpur P.S. is that about two years ago her husband (P.W. 1) had purchased 12 dhurs and 16 dhurkis of land adjacent south of her house from Narain Chaudhary on a consideration of Rs. 2000/- a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner is defendant in Eviction Suit No. 17/1997 filed by O.P. No. 1 under Section 14 of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the ground of personal necessity and expiry of fixed period of lease. The defendant filed written statement in which he admitted the relationship of land-lord and tenant between the parties, but claimed that there was no violation of the terms of agreement, rather the plaintiff himself refused to further extend the period of lease after two extensions and that there was no personal necessity of the plaintiff.2. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit, the sole plaintiff sold the suit premises to the subsequently added plaintiff No. 2 (O.P. No. 2) by sale-deed dated 16.12.2002 whereafter the purchaser was added as plaintiff No. 2 by the Trial Court on 21.4.2003 against which the defendant filed civil revision No. 826/2003 whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Mridula Mishra, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 1987 and Criminal Appeal No. 629 of 1987 have been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 30.11.1987, passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 1986/388 of 1986. These two appeals are being decided by this common judgment.2. All appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment- for life. Appellant Bhagwat Singh has further been convicted under Section 302/109 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been awarded on this count. Appellant Bhagwat Singh and Satyanarain Singh have further been convicted under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellant Bhagwat Singh has also been convicted under Section 323 of the, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant Ram Binai Sharma and Hirday Narain Sharma alias Babun S...
Tag this Judgment!