Patna Court July 2006 Judgments
Ram Tapeshwar Sah and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
1. This is a batch of 165 cases, out of which, 160 cases are Writ Petitioner and 5 cases are Letters Patent Appeals, which have arisen out of interlocutory orders passed in some of the aforesaid writ cases.2. So far LPA Nos. 150 of 2005, 153 of 2005 and 225 of 2005 (Serial Nos. 159, 160 and 161) are concerned, they are barred by law of limitation but interlocutory applications have been filed for condoning the delay and copies thereof have been served upon the other side. LPA Nos. 111 of 2006 and 122 of 2006 (Serial Nos. 162 and 163) are also barred by law of limitation and interlocutory applications for condoning the delay have been filed but copies thereof have not been served upon the learned Counsel for the other side, However, the writ petitions, out of which the said two Letters Patent Appeals have been filed, are pending and are included in the aforesaid batch of writ cases at serial Nos. 149 and 148 respectively and the respondents of these appeals are petitioners in those wri...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sharda Nand Sinha Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-13-2006
Narayan Roy, J.1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This matter was heard on 23rd June, 2006 and the state counsel was directed to put in further counter affidavit stating therein as to why the case of the petitioner was not considered for further promotion in accordance with law. No affidavit has been filed pursuant to the said order. This court, therefore, proceeds to dispose of this writ application on the basis of the materials on record.3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order as contained in Annexure 1 issued vide memo No. 58(17) dated 31.1.2001 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner for his promotion t the post of Associate Professor has been rejected. A further prayer has also been made to direct the authorities to promote the petitioner on the post of Associate Professor in Physiology.4. It appears that the petitioner for the same self grievance had earlier come to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2605 of 1998. The writ application aforesaid was dismissed with an obs...
Tag this Judgment!Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University and ors. Vs. Sudhir Kumar ...
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
1. The case is under the heading 'For orders'. However, with the consent of the parties, the appeal has been heard on merits, and is being disposed of by this order.2. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25th of March 1998, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 13121 of 1996, whereby the learned Single Judge quashed the order of punishment and directed to reinstate the respondent-writ petitioner in service and pay back wages.3. The relevant facts of the case are that the respondent, Sudhir Kumar Sinha, is an employee of the appellant University. He is a Proof Reader in the University Press. He was suspended for his misconduct, vide order dated 12.10.1993. A three-man committee was constituted to inquire into the charges levelled against the respondent-employee. He filed C.W.J.C. No. 9795/95, challenging the order of suspension, which was disposed of by order dated 12.7.1996. While disposing of the writ petition, it was ordered that the inquiry be concluded, and the final ord...
Tag this Judgment!Mritunjay Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. Upon a Joint request of learned Counsels for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a direction against the respondents authorities to confirm him and regularise his services on the post of Chaukidar as he is working on the said post as a substitute Chaukidar. It is his case that he is discharging his duty as a Chaukidar with effect from 15.3.1991 and, therefore, he is entitled to be regularised in the service. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 4 is filed, as well as, a supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner is, also, filed. Learned Counsels for the parties are heard and the affidavits are, also, considered.3. It is very clear from the record that there is no any appointment order in favour of the petitioner as a substitute Chaukidar. It is an admitted fact, also. The only contention which is advanced before this Court is that ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Pukar Sah Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-12-2006
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. Upon a joint request of learned Counsels for the parties, in view of the peculiar circumstances and special events, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.2. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is against the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by the respondents for the post of Chaukidar relying on a letter of the Home Department, Government of Bihar dated 6.11.1991.3. Let there be a few facts with a view to appreciate the merits of the challenge in this writ petition against the impugned order:4. The petitioner applied for the post of Chaukidar/Dafadar in Police Station on regular basis, as earlier he was working as a Dafadar since 1985 temporarily, pursuant to an advertisement, dated 12.5.1999, inviting applications which on being processed came to be rejected only on the ground that it was against the criteria laid down in the aforesaid letter of the Hon Department. The rejection order of the appl...
Tag this Judgment!Brajesh Choudhary Vs. the State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-10-2006
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.1. On the basis of a report given to the Police, Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 57 of 2002 was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons. According to the first information report, opposite party No. 2- accused who happened to be the Manager of the Muzaffarpur Branch of the Carryco Transport Company in criminal conspiracy with his brother and wife committed defalcation of more than Rs. 1 crore by fabricating and falsification of account.2. The police, after investigation submitted charge sheet and the accused was ultimately put on trial for offence under Section 406, 408, 120B, 420, 468, 471 and 477 of the Indian Penal Code, for short 'IPC'. Accused appeared and pleaded his guilt and admitted misappropriating a sum of Rs. 1 crore by interpolating the accounts of the Company. On his admission of guilt, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 30th June, 2003 passed in Trial No. 1353 of 2003 (G.R.No. 377 of 2002), held him guilty under Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Pandey and ors. Vs. State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
Mridula Mishra, J.1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State.2. This application has been filed for quashing the F.I.R. of Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 35 of 2003 dated 17.4.2003 registered under Sections 420, 414 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3 of the Prevention of of Damage to Public Property Act,1984.3. Petitioner No. 1 is the Manager of M/s Mamta Filling Station, Baikunthpur and other petitioners are staff of M/s Mamta Filling Station. On 16/17.4.2003 petitioners were reloading. petrol/diesel contained in tanker No. WB-11-8693 sent from Bharat Petroleum Depot, Patna. Mithlesh Kumar Das, Officer Incharge of Baikunthpur police station a that time came along with the police force and seized the tanker from which Diesel/patrol was being filled in the ground tank of M/s Mamta Filling Station. Seizure was made on the alleged ground that Kerosene oil was being adulterated in diesel/petrol. The Officer-in-charge of Baikunthpur police st...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Bina Singh Alias Sinha Vs. the Bihar State Housing Board and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
S.N. Hussain, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board and its authorities.2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the Bihar State Housing Board communicated vide memo No. 1426 dated 14.3.1997 (Annexure 6), by which the representation of the petitioner was rejected and she was asked to pay additional demand of Rs. 3.10.821/- with respect to allotment of M.I.G. House No. 172. situated at Lohivanagar, Patna.3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that under the welfare scheme for middle income group of landless persons lands were acquired and constructions of house were made to be allotted to such persons on the basis of no profit and no loss. He also states that after completing the entire infrastructure and payment of cost of land as well as cost of construction by the Government allotments were made. He further submits that earlier the said house has given to the petitioner on rent and subsequently pursua...
Tag this Judgment!Ambika Prasad Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-07-2006
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard Sri B.K. Kanth Sr. advocate for the petitioner and J.C. to G.P-II for the State of Bihar.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notification dated 21.12.2005, Annexure-1, whereunder he has been placed under suspension for the misconduct committed in the widening/strengthening of the Ara Sasaram Road as has been found by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department in its report dated 20.4.2005, Annexure-2 which was submitted to the Road Construction Department (R.C.D.) under letter No. 3863 dated 25.10.2005, Annexure- 14. The challenge is made on the ground that the suspension order is not only arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India but also contrary to the provisions contained in the Bihar Government Civil Service Classification (Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. It is submitted that earlier proceeding for the same misconduct was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 56 of the Civil Services Classification (Control and Appeal) Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Ajit Mahto @ Ajit Kumar Mahto Vs. Ram Prakash Mahton and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Jul-06-2006
Navaniti Pd. Singh, J.1. Heard.2. The petitioner was the defendant in a partition suit. The plaintiff-decree holder has appeared through Mr. Triloki Nath Maitin, learned senior counsel. The prayer of the defendant-petitioner was that in the partition suit at the instance of the plaintiff share of the parties were defined. In the final decree such properties allotted to each member of the family was clearly specified. The plaintiff is entitled to the decree prayed for and institutiution of execution proceeding for demarcation and delivery of possession to him. The defendant in the said proceeding appeared and demanded that on payment of requisite court fee and other levy the aforesaid share of his property as per the final decree be also made and executed. This has been rejected by the executing court on the ground that the suit and decree being in favour of the plaintiff it cannot be executed as such in favour of the defendant. I have heard the parties. Mr. Maitin has very fairly conc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »