Patna Court August 2005 Judgments
Rajat Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J.1. Petitioner is a Clerk of High School Madhaul in the district of Sitamarhi and at the relevant time, working as such on deputation in the office of the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi.2. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, in its report dated 27.10.2003 (Annexure-8) addressed to the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi, wrote about the petitioner's role in attempting to make payment of salary to one Shri Prem Kumar Pandit who allegedly secured appointment on the basis of forged letter. On receipt of the aforesaid report the District Magistrate, by its memo No. 375/2004 (Annexure-9), asked the petitioner to submit his explanation through his Controlling Officer, as to why appropriate departmental action be not taken against him. Petitioner submitted his explanation dated 10.4.2004 (Annexure-10), inter alia, contending that he had no role in getting the amount disbursed from the treasury and, in fact, on account of his diligence payment could not be made to...
Tag this Judgment!Chakradhar Jha Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-24-2005
Narayan Roy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.2. This writ application is directed against the order, as contained in annexure 4, issued vide memo No. 26 dated 5.1.2002, whereby and whereunder the petitioner and others have been dismissed from services for want of their first date of appointment.3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner initially was engaged to work on daily wages since 1980 and thereunder he was considered along with others for regular appointment on Class IV posts, namely, Nal Koop Khalasi, by duly constituted committee on 3.2.1983 and the committee finding them eligible for the posts of Nal Koop Khalasi appointed them on substantive basis vide order, as contained in annexure 2, and the petitioner thereafter continued to work on the post of Nal Koop Khalasi and he was promoted to the post of Nal Koop Mistiy vide order dated 11.1.1993. In the meantime, a show-cause notice was given to...
Tag this Judgment!Shiv Kumar Bhagat Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-23-2005
Shashank Kumar Singh and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ.1. In this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 12.7.2005 (Annexure-8) whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for renewal of the licence has been rejected.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that the Excise Commissioner, Bihar, Patna by order dated 18.3.2002 granted approval for grant of one additional wholesale licence to vend India made foreign liquor, hereinafter referred to 'IMFL' for the district of Begusarai. One Prem Lal Gupta challenged the same by filing a writ application before this Court. During the pendency of the said writ application, petitioner was granted the licence. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prem Lata Gupta v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2002 (3) PLJR 769, allowed the writ application and quashed the grant of additional licence to vend IMFL at Begusarai....
Tag this Judgment!Anisul Rehman Vs. Abdul Bari
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-23-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears for the opposite party even after several notices validly served on him.2. Petitioner is the sole defendant of Title Suit No. 52 of 1993 which was filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for declaration that possession given to the defendant in Execution Case No. 1 of 1987 was illegal and also for recovery of possession and injunction etc.3. It transpires from the record of the case including the impugned order that the plaintiff had claimed that in an earlier suit bearing Partition Suit No. 79 of 1972 a decree for partition was passed, but due to the collusion of Advocate Commissioner, wrong allotment was made in the Final decree according to which the defendant got delivery of possession over the land of the plaintiff who was not a party in the said Partition Suit. It does not appear from the record that either the said Final decree was challenged in any appeal etc. by any one or it was ever set aside, revers...
Tag this Judgment!National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Raj Laxmi Sinha and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-23-2005
S. Nayer Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner is Defendant No. 3 in Motor Vehicle Case No. 5 of 1993 which was filed by the claimants (opposite party Nos. 1 and 2) in which Award was prepared on 7.1.1998 by which an amount of Rs. 20,17,370/- was awarded with interest at the rate of 6% per annum excluding future expenses till their realisation. This Award was challenged by the other side but it was affirmed upto the Hon'ble Apex Court, whereafter Certificate proceeding for the same was initiated in which two cheques of Rs. 10,95,530/- each was handed over to the claimants for full satisfaction of the said Award and accordingly on 30.1.1999 the District Certificate Officer ordered to drop the said Certificate proceeding. Immediately thereafter on 16.2.1999 the claimants (O.P. Nos. 1 and 2) filed a petition under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for the sake of brevity) for correction of the arithmetical mista...
Tag this Judgment!State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Prof. Dr. Amarnath Singh
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-23-2005
Narayan Roy and Mridula Mishra, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.2. All these Letters Patent Appeals are directed against order dated 14.2.2002 passed in CWJC Nos. 12449, 12581, 14141, ,12725, 13543, 15786 of 2001 and 310 of 2002 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.3. Before noticing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties it would be necessary to notice certain facts giving rise to the writ applications and Letters Patent Appeals.4. The matter revolves round the question of implementation of 1996 UGC scales and the revised scales granted by the University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'UGC') to the teachers of the Universities with effect from 1.1.1986. The benefits of U.G.C. scales were made available to the teachers of the State of Bihar vide notification No. 1044 HRD dated 7.8.1989, wherein different scales were made available to the Lecturers, Readers and University Professors. UGC again revised pay scales of teachers vide UGC...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Bihar Through Chief Secretary and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-19-2005
Chandramauli Kumar Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed for quashing the order as contained in Memo dated 7.10.2004 (Annexure 1) whereby, the petitioner has been put under suspension.2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner is an accused in R.C. case No. 3 (A) of 1997 (D) popularly known as the Bitumen scam case. The said case was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation and ultimately petitioner was charge-sheeted. He was taken into custody in the said case on 6.1.2004 and order directing his release was passed on 9.3.2004. It is the stand of the petitioner that after he was released on bail, he submitted his joining and started discharging his duty but later on, by the impugned order dated 7.10.2004 he has been put under suspension with effect from 5.1.2004. It is the stand of the petitioner that the State Government does not possess power to pass order of suspension with retrospective effect and in any view of the matter afte...
Tag this Judgment!Dinanath Sao Vs. Dinanath Thakur
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-19-2005
S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner who wants to review of the order of this Court dated 14.12.2004 passed in Civil Revision No. 1785 of 2003 which was allowed by the said order and the orders dated 5.8.2003 and 29.7.1999 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 37 of 1999 and Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 1993 respectively, were set aside and the ex parte Judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 25 of 1986 was also set aside and the trial Court was directed to hear the Title Suit afresh and decide the same on merits after hearing the parties in accordance with law.2. It may be pointed out that full length argument was made by the learned counsel for the parties whereafter the said Civil Revision was decided by the order under challenge in which all points were considered.3. Now, this review petition has been filed on two grounds. Firstly, that in view of the latest amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Surya D...
Tag this Judgment!Behar Engineering Corporation Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-19-2005
S.K. Katriar, J.1. Heard Mr. Samrendra Pratap Singh for petitioner, Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Learned JC to Standing Counsel No. I for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 (State of Bihar and its functionaries), Mr. Umakant Singh for respondent No. 5 (Managing Director, Bihar State Small Industries Corporation), Mr. Madan Mohan for respondent Nos. 6 to 9, and Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha for respondent No. 10 (M/s. Paras Febritek through its own Kanti Kumar). This writ petition is directed against the order bearing letter No. 1091-D, dated 16.10.2001 (Annexure-3), issued by the Patna Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority'), whereby the lease-hold rights in favour of the petitioner with respect to the industrial plot in question situate in the township of Patna has been cancelled on account of violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed. It is further directed against order bearing memo No. 34-D, dated 7.1.2003 (Annexure-F), whereby the said industrial plo...
Tag this Judgment!Ajai Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Aug-19-2005
Barin Ghosh, J.1. The writ petitioner was a tenant under the respondent No. 5 of a shop room. The respondent No. 5 approached the respondent No. 2 with a request to the respondent No. 2 to remove the petitioner from the shop room in question for the purpose of effecting repairs thereto. The respondent No. 2 issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner responded to the notice and contended before the respondent No. 2 that the respondent No. 2 is not the competent authority to implement the request as made by the respondent No. 5. Before the respondent No. 2 the respondent No. 5 contended that the respondent No. 2 has authority to direct removal of the petitioner from the shop room in question in terms of Section 9 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1981. The petitioner contended before the respondent No. 2 that under Section 9 of the said Act, at the instance of the landlord, no order can be passed for effecting repairs.2. On 12th January, 2001, the res...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »