Court : Patna
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. In this group of 62 Letters Patent Appeals under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, the challenge is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, dated 28.6.2006, rendered in a group of writ petitions, lead petition being CWJC No. 16099 of 2001, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and set aside the impugned orders with regard to disengagement, retrenchment and removal, as well as discharge of the original writ petitioners from Government service, with a further direction to the respondents to consider the cases of original writ petitioners for their regularization in the light of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and to complete the entire process within four months.2. We have given our anxious thoughts and considerations to the divergent submissions raised before us in this group of appeals at the time of the marathon hearing when we agreed to take all these m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
J.N. Bhatt, C.J.1. In this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court, the challenge is against the order dated 1.3.2007 passed in CWJC No. 2663 of 2007 of the learned. Single Judge.2. We have heard the submissions of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. Relevant proposition of law in the backdrops of the factual premises of the present case have also been considered.3. The appellants are five original writ petitioners who initiated the legal battle by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the respondent authority to permit the appellants - original writ petitioners and similarly situated persons to appear in All India Secondary School Examination ('AISSE') conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education ('C.B.S.E.') commencing from the 2nd March, 2007 and for publication of their results. These appellants-original writ petitioners are the students of Kiddy Convent High School, Bairiya, Patn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Barin Ghosh, J.1. Petitioners were working as Horticulture Inspector. By an order dated 14th October, 1999, petitioners and some other Horticulture Inspectors were promoted to the post of Horticulture Officer/Sub Divisional Horticulture Officer. In pursuance of the decision contained in the letter dated 10th May, 2001 and communicated by the letter dated 11th May, 2001, the said promotions of the Petitioners were cancelled. Petitioners, therefore, have filed the present writ petition challenging the decision contained in the letter dated 10th May, 2001, communicated by the letter dated 11th May, 2001. The letters dated 10th may, 2001 and 11th May, 2001 do not disclose the reasons for cancellation of such promotions of the petitioners.2. In the counter affidavit, four reasons have been given for cancellation of the said promotions of the petitioners. The first of them is non-clearance of model roster for promotion. There is no dispute that roster points 111 to 157 were being filled up ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Initially this Letters Patent Appeal was filed against the order dated 15.9.2006 passed in Civil Review No. 38 of 2005 arising out of order dated 1.2.2005 passed in CWJC No. 12483 of 2003 by the learned Single Judge but at the time of submission, we also, taking the larger interest into consideration, permitted the learned Counsel to challenge the impugned judgment in the connected writ petition (CWJC No. 12483 of 2003), Therefore, we deal with the submissions raised before us as review petition was dismissed.2. Following facts may be articulated which have emerged from the record. The appellant original writ petitioner came to be superannuated on 30.9.1997 from service of the State Government in Class III as clerk in Fishery Department. He filed a petition complaining that retiral dues were paid late and, therefore, he desired direction for grant of interest on the delayed payment.3. Learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances, reached to the conclusion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.5.2000 at Annexure-2 passed by Respondent No. 2. The impugned order directs recovery of Rs. 20,000/- from the petitioner in view of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8973 of 1998.3. C.W.J.C. No. 8973 of 1998 was filed by one Sheo Shankar Singh for release of his provident fund dues. A Bench of this Court disposed off the matter on 31.8.1999. The Court noticed the flurry of activities that took place in the office of the Respondents after the writ petition was taken up for release of the provident fund dues and internecine battle that then took place between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 with regard to their stands before the court. Respondent No. 2 blamed the petitioner for the delay. The petitioner being represented by his superior (Respondent No. 2 had no occasion to file a separate counter affidavit. Thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Abhijit Sinha, J.1. The sole appellant has preferred this appeal impugning the judgment and order dated 23.6.1992 passed by Sri Kunjal Sai Miru Toppo, the then Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Darbhanga, in T.R. No. 15 of 1988 (arising out of Biraul P.S. Case No. 28 of 1988). By the impugned judgment and order the appellant on being convicted for an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'E.C. Act') for violation of the provisions of Bihar Trade Articles (Licenses Unification) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Unification Order) has been imposed a sentence to undergo R.I. for one year.2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that the informant R.K. Jain, Magistrate Incharge of Flying Squad, Benipur Subdivision along with Supply Inspector Bal Govind Jha and Sub-Election Officer Mahaweer Prasad visited the shop and godown premises of accused Shiv Shankar Chaudhary on 20.4.1988. Although the shopkeeper was found absen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Syed Mohd. Mahfooz Alam, J.1. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the judgment/award dated 1.3.2000, passed by Mr. Baikunth Nath Shahi, Third Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Begusarai in Claim Case No. 53 of 1994 whereby he has been pleased to grant the compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000 to the claimants with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application and directed the appellant to indemnify the entire compensation amount.2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. has preferred this appeal.3. From the perusal of the lower court records it appears that the claim case was filed for grant of compensation on account of death of one Manoj Kumar Rai caused in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 2.6.1994 at about 2.30 in the night at NH 28 near village Bagraha. It is said that the deceased was travelling in the truck bearing registration No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Abhijit Sinha, J.1. There are five appellants in these three appeals which have been preferred against a common Judgment and order passed by Shri Sanjay Priya, learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif, dated 5th May, 2003 in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 1985, arising out of Asthawan P.S. Case No. 204 of 1982. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his Judgment and order dated 5.5.2003 and 8.5.2003 respectively. Since these appeals have been preferred against a common Judgment they are being heard together for convenience sake and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.2. Whereas accused, Sadhu Gope and Deoki Yadav have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for seven years for the offence under Section 27 Arms Act, accused, Baleshwar Yadav, Achhelal Gope and Rohan Yadav have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years for the offences under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Madhavendra Saran, J.1. This application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as Code) has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.12.97 passed by Shri Mahabir Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gaya in Misc. case No. 20/1987 corresponding to Jr. No. 575/97 whereby and whereunder he refused to recall the exparte order dated 21.7.97 by which the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to O.P. no. 2 at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month along with arrears since 5.5.1987.2. It appears that O.P. No. 2, Smt. Pushpa Kumari, filed an application u/s 125 of the Code in the court of CJM, Gaya on 5.5.87 and the said application was numbered as Misc. case No. 20/87 in which O.P. No. 2 claimed herself to be legally wedded wife of the petitioner and claimed maintenance from him. Learned Magistrate initiated the proceeding and issued notice against petitioner who appeared and filed show cause. In course of enquiry two witnesses were examined on behalf of the applicant and cros...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the State and the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2.2. The Respondent No. 2 filed Misc. Election Petition No. 22 of 2006 before the Munsif, Danapur, challenging the election of the petitioner as Mukhia of the Singhara Copa Gram Panchayat. The petitioner appeared, filed her written statement denying the allegations. A preliminary objection was also taken with regard to the maintainability of the suit. The challenge was that in absence of the details of corrupt practices under Sections 139 or 141 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the suit ought to be dismissed at the initial stage.3. The court below by the impugned order dated 3.11.2006 rejected the objection holding that the issue of maintainability would not be decided as a preliminary issue and that it had necessarily to be decided along with other issues raised in the suit.4. Learned Counse...
Tag this Judgment!