Patna Court November 2005 Judgments

Ramjeet Singh Vs. Janki Devi

Court: Patna

Syed Md. Mahfooz ALAM, J.1. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.6.1989 passed by Sri Sitaram Mahto, Special Judge, Gaya in Revenue Appeal No. 16/1987 confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.6.1987 passed by Sri Ramji Singh, Circle Officer, Gaya in Title Suit No. 1577 of 1982 whereby the learned Circle Officer had been pleased to decree the suit of the plaintiff.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :-Plaintiff-respondent Smt. Janki Devi filed Title Suit No. 1577 of 1982 before the Circle Officer, Gaya for correction of entry in the revisional suivey khatian stating therein that the name of the defendant Ramjeet Singh was wrongly entered in the remarks column of the revisional survey khatian. The prayer was made that the name of the defendant be deleted and the name of the plaintiff be entered in the remarks column.3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that R.S. Plot No. 565 appertaining to R.S. Khata No. 111. corresponding to...

Bhagirath Rai Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.1. This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner to a class IV post.2. Shorn of all unnecessary detail facts giving rise to the present application are that several daily wages employees of the Gandak Command Area and Development Agency, Muzaffarpur, hereinafter referred to as the Agency, filed writ application before this Court, inter alia, praying for regularisation of their services. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 20th of December 1996, passed in CWJC No. 2672 of 1990 (Mohan Thakur and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.) and analogous cases allowed the writ application and directed the respondents to consider the case of daily wages employees for regularisation against sanctioned and vacant posts. The order of this Court reads as follows :In that view of the matter, respondent No. 3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularisation of...

Arif Kamal Khan Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Mridula Misra, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.2. This application has been filed by the petitioner, who is the owner of the truck bearing Registration No. HR 38K 0403, for a direction to the respondents to release the same. Petitioner's case is that he has purchased this truck through Financer and is paying monthly instalment of Rs. 30,000/- to the financer. The truck was engaged on the relevant date by the transport contractor for carrying wood. On relevant date the truck loaded with wooden logs was coming from Allahabad to Gaya. During the course of transportation the vehicle in question was intercepted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya for committing the offence Under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The vehicle in question was seized on 13.8.2005 and Confiscation case No. 8 of 2005 was intimated. The truck was forwarded with the seized articles, before the Court of Divisional Forest Officer, Gaya. Petitioner's anxiety is that seized ve...

Md. SarfuddIn @ SarfuddIn Mian Vs. Sabir Thakur and anr.

Court: Patna

Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1.2. The present application arises out of a proceeding initiated under Section 147 of the Cr. P.C. on a petition preferred by the Opposite Party No. 2. By order dated 16.1.2003 the Executive Magistrate, Chapra after hearing the parties directed the present petitioner not to interfere with the user of the land in question as a passage by Opposite Party No. 1 recording his satisfaction that the same was being so used by Opposite Party No. 1 for the previous more than approximately 35 years. A revision having been preferred against the same by the petitioner, Cr. Rev. No. 66/2003, before the 4th Additional Session Judge, Saran, came to be dismissed on 29.5.2003 affirming the finding of the Executive Magistrate holding that the failure of the Magistrate to record such user within the three months next from the date of report of the p...

Radhe Krishna Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. This reference is necessitated pursuant to an observation made by a Division Bench of this Court, in its order recorded on 16.7.2004, wherein, in the light of difference between English and Hindi versions of the notification dated 26.10.1977, apparently, conflict was conceived and felt between two following Division Bench decisions of this Court.2. In the case of Mahabir Flour Mills v. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Anr. (1987) 65 STC 296 : 1987 PLJR 624, it came to be held that English version will prevail over Hindi version of the notification with reference to the liability for payment of sales tax in respect of 'oil cake' in Entry No. 35 of the notification No. 3320, dated 9th March, 1978, as it provides exemption from payment of sales tax under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (In short 'Act').3. Whereas on the other hand, in another Division Bench decision of this Court, rendered in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. The Chancellor, Magadh University and Ors. 198...

State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Ram Tawakya Singh and ors.

Court: Patna

J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. This reference has been pursuant to the observation made in the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in this Letters Patent Appeal No. 766 of 1998 : State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Housing Department, Government of Bihar and Ors. v. Ram Tawakya Singh and Ors. dated 3.2.2000, whereby, it was felt expedient that the matter needs to be placed before the larger Bench for consideration even after consideration of the Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. v. Shiv Rani Devi and Ors. reported in 1998 (1) PLJR 409, as there was another Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Deena Nath Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1986 PLJR 405, wherein, it has been observed and held that a circular of the Government running contrary to the Rule Provision will not have any legal status and effect for the purpose of consideration of the provisions of Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. At th...

Narendra Narayan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.1. The question which falls for determination in the present case is as to whether telephone dues of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, can be recovered as a public demand under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914.2. Facts necessary for the decision of the aforesaid question lie in a narrow compass :-3. Petitioner happens to be the subscriber of Telephone No. 52030, linked with Jai Nagar Telephone Exchange. Complaining demand of charges more than he was liable to pay for the use of the telephone, petitioner filed Consumer Case No. 7 of 1993 before the District Consumer Forum, Madhubani constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. The District Consumer Forum by its order dated 6th of August, 1998 directed the competent authority to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act for adjudication of the dispute. In the light of the said order, Deputy General Manager (Administration) of the Bharat Sanchar N...

Pushpa Sinha and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna

Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ203CAT

1. O.A. 562 of 1998 was originally filed by Late Shri Niranjan Prasad Sinha S/o Late Shri Kapildeo Narayan Sinha under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.2. Shri Sinha, however, died on 21.8.2004 and hence his legal heirs namely Smt. Pushpa Sinha, Wife, Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Son and Shri Subodh Kumar Sinha, another son of Late Shri Niranjan Prasad Sinha filed a M.A. No. 157 of 2005 on 2.12.2004 for substitution of the names of heirs in place of Shri Sinha in O.A. No. 562 of 1998. The request was allowed. There was, however, a delay of fifteen days in filing the impugned M.A. which too was condoned by the Tribunal vide, order dated 30th May, 2005 on sufficient grounds advanced by the successor applicants. These applicants are represented by their Counsel Mr. S.N.Shukla.3. The case was originally fixed for hearing on 31.8.2005. Due to non-appearance of the learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. S.N.Shukla, the O.A. in question was dismissed for default. Subsequently,...

Deepak Jaiswal Vs. State and ors.

Court: Patna

1. Heard Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bipin Kumar, counsel representing the private contesting respondent No. 3. Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Government Pleader-2 is also present but since the matter arises out from the mutation proceeding, the State has no interest in this case.2. The learned Single Judge declined to go into the merits of the case of the writ petitioner-appellant on the sole ground that he came to this Court after inordinate and unexplained delay. On hearing counsel for the parties, we find that the position is not so and the delay can be explained. Moreover, as would appear from the following facts the petitioner has been rendered remedyless and it is, therefore, just and reasonable that his case should receive due consideration by the statutory authority.3. The rights, title and the interests in the disputed plot was earlier decided in the year 1960 in favour of the petitioner in a title suit before the Civil Court. He, however, makes the gri...

Binod Kumar Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Patna

J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. The reference of this petition has been to Full Bench necessitated on account of a reference order made by learned Single Judge, while appreciating and examining the merits of the petition being C.W.J.C. No. 5777 of 2002. It was felt by learned Single Bench that in view of two Division Bench, decisions rendered in (1) Susil Kumar Pandey v. Union of India and Ors. 2001 (2) BLJ 525 : 2001 (4) PLJR 678 and (2) Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India and Ors. 2003 (2) PLJR 151 that are seemingly contradictory to each other. Therefore, it was thought by the learned Single Judge to have one authoritative pronouncement by a Full Bench to resolve the conflict between the two Division Bench judgments. That is how, the learned Single Judge was prompted to refer the matter so that this issue of vital public interest relating to jurisdiction of this Court may be settled, by the Full Bench Let it be also, recalled that in the said reference ,order it has been observed :Let it be plac...