Patna Court August 2005 Judgments

Bishwanath Sah and ors. Vs. Shyam Bharti and ors.

Court: Patna

S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties,2. Petitioners are plaintiffs of Title Suit No. 176 of 1995 which was decreed on 28.2.2003 under the provision of Order VIII Rule 10, CPC. Thereafter, the defendants-opposite parties filed Miscellaneous Case No. 21 of 2003 under Order IX Rule 13, CPC which was allowed by the impugned order dated 21.8.2004 passed by the learned Second Munsif, Siwan.3. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs had filed their rejoinder in the Miscellaneous Case on 26.9.2003 raising the question of maintainability of the case on the ground that when the suit is decreed under Order VIII Rule 10, CPC the provision of Order IX Rule 13, CPC can not be made applicable and hence, the Miscellaneous Case was not maintainable at all.4. After going through the impugned order of the learned Court below, it is quite apparent that he has not at/all considered the question of maintainability which was the first point to be decided in such matter. Hence, without ...

Ajeet Kumar Rai and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar

Court: Patna

C.K. Prasad, J.1. Appellants Ajeet Kumar Rai alias Ajeet Narayan Rai, Vinay Kumar Rai and Ashutosh Kumar Rai alias Sanjay Kumar Rai were put on trial for causing murder of Nanda Kumar Singh in furtherance of their common intention punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Ashutosh Kumar Rai has further been charged for committing the murder of Nand Kumar Singh punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.2. The Presiding Officer, Additional Court No. 1 (Fast Track Court), by judgment dated 7th February, 2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 578/1 of 1996/2001 held Ajeet Kumar Rai alias Ajeet Narayan Rai and Vinay Kumar Rai guilty under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, for short 'IPC' and appellant Ashutosh Kumar Rai alias Sanjay Kumar Rai under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant Ashutosh Kumar Rai alias Sanjay Kumar Rai has further been found guilty of offe...

Naresh Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Substantially, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to regularise his services on the post of Rajaswa Sangrahak in the Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court that though the petitioner was engaged to work seasonwise, he is entitled to be regularised as per the policy decision taken by the State of Bihar, as contained in Annexure 4 dated 2.5.1992.4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been employed on daily wages against seasonal post and he was required to work only during a particular season in a year and not throughout the year.5. Owing to the nature of engagement of the petitioner, in my opinion, it would not be appropriate for this Court to direct the respondent authorities to regularise his services when there is no need of permanent employees.6. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that as per the policy decision of the ...

Dr. Amarendra Roy Choudhary Vs. Sri Kunj Bihari Roy and ors.

Court: Patna

S.N. Hussain, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 1 and 4, learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 and 3.2. Petitioner is Defendant No. 2 in Title Suit No. 221 of 1996 which was filed by Opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 for partition of the suit properties.3. Defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 1.8.2003 passed in the aforesaid suit by which learned sub-Judge-III, Buxar, refused to consider his petition under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure and all the defendants were given liberty to raise the said point at the time of argument after closure of the evidence.4. From the arguments of the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the suit is already nine years old and during the said proceeding several matters arose between the parties against which one or other party came before this Court in Civil Revision Nos. 2161 of 2001 and 869 of 2002 which were heard together by this Court and were decid...

Ram Swarup Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Radha Mohan Prasad, J.1. In this writ petition, petitioner, in fact, is aggrieved by the order, contained in Annexure 3, whereby his claim for second time bound promotion has been rejected.2. Bare perusal of Annexure 3 shows that the petitioner was initially appointed as Amin on 2.2.1965. Later, he on promotion to the post of 'Parimapak' (surveyor) was given higher scale of Rs. 1320-2040/- with effect from 1.1.1986. As such, his said claim has been rejected on the ground that the said benefit could have been available to him, if he would have been continuing on his initial post of Amin.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per provision laid down in the Government resolution dated 30th December, 1981, a Government servant is entitled for two promotions; first by the end of 10 years of service and the second by the end of 25 years of service. If he is otherwise fit for promotion and has not been able to get a single promotion by 10 years of service notwithstandin...

Rajeshwar Pandey Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2006(3)BLJR2155

1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The amendment application is allowed. It will form part of the main writ application.3. The petitioner is challenging annexure 3, whereby and whereunder the proceedings in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as "Rules") has been drawn against him.4. The petitioner has approached this Court prematurely. It appears that till date final decision has not been taken by the authority in terms of Rule 43(b) of the Rules.5. Learned counsel for the State points out that a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner during his service tenure and charges were framed against him, which were communicated to him, but he refused to receive the same.6. It is also pointed out that at no point of time, the petitioner prayed to drop the proceeding and consequently thereof, therefore, the present proceeding has been drawn up after his superannuation.7. Since the petitioner is in receipt of the order of the proceeding drawn a...

Dental College and Hospital Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. N. Pathak, learned Counsel for the Union of India, JC to AAG II for the State and also Mr. H. P. Singh learned Counsel, for the University.2. This writ application is directed against the communique dated 29-12-2000 as contained in Annexure-13 issued by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (Department of Health), Govt. of India.3. It is submitted by Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the dental college in question was established at Rambagh in the district of Purnea after affiliation duly granted by B. N. Mandal University on 29-6-1992. The petitioner thereafter applied before the Central Government for necessary direction to the Dental Council of India to inspect and submit its report and thereafter grant recognition in terms of the provisions of the Dentists (Amendment) Act, 1993. The application filed by the petitioner, though was entertained but certain queries were made by t...

Dhuplal Rai and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Reported in: 2006(3)BLJR2156

1. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of termination.2. According to the case of the petitioners, they were appointed by the then Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police, Shri S.K. Saxena, without any advertisement.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police has jurisdiction to appoint certain persons even without advertisement.4. JC to SC 6 on the basis of counter affidavit submitted that the appointment of the petitioners since was found ab initio void, they have been terminated. It has also been submitted that appointments made beyond the procedures prescribed under law are invalid appointment, as they cannot be said to be in consonance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and, therefore, all appointments made by the then Director General-cum-Inspector General of Police in the same manner have been cancelled. No ground, whatsoever, has been made on behalf of the pet...

Tripit Narayan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Patna

S.K. Katriar, J. 1. Heard Mr. Indu Bhushan Prasad for the petitioner, Dr. Ravi Ranjan for opposite parties Nos. 1 to 4, and Mr. Anuj Prakash, learned junior counsel to Standing Counsel No. 6 for opposite parties Nos. 5 to 7.2. This application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act has been filed by the petitioner of CWJC No. 7384 of 2002 (Tripti Narayan Singh v. The Union of India and Ors., whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhawan New Delhi, on 9.12.2002, with his representation/show-cause, whereafter the competent authority was directed to hear the petitioner and decide the matter by a speaking order. Operation of the impugned order, which was to the effect that the petitioner's freedom fighters pension had been terminated was stayed. It was further observed in the order that, if the petitioner did not appear on the date re...

The State of Jharkhand Vs. Kamlakant Mishra and ors.

Court: Patna

1. After having heard the parties and considering the facts, the delay, as prayed for, is condoned.2. By the order passed in the domestic inquiry against the original petitioner one Kamla Kant Mishra, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, at the relevant time posted at Chatra, now in the State of Jharkhand, who was found delinquent, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of reduction in the lower rank for a period of one year without cumulative effect for the proved charge of absenteeism.3. After the award of punishment by the department as sequel to the departmental inquiry, the original petitioner preferred an appeal against that before the Director General of Police. Subsequently, he filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 1055 of 1996. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to dispose of the pending appeal within a period of four weeks. Thereafter the appeal came to be heard on merits in which appellate authority, in terms of Rule 853-...