Patna Court January 2008 Judgments

Suresh Prasad Rai and anr. Vs. Patna Municipal Corpn. and ors.

Court: Patna

Mihir kumar Jha, J.1. Heard Counsel for the parties.In this writ application, the two petitioners have assailed the order, dated 19.01.2007 (Annexure-6) whereby and whereunder twelve Pipeline Khalashi were promoted on the post of Pipeline Mistry under a decision of Patna Water Board. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the list of these twelve persons, two of them, namely, Phoolena Thakur and Ram Charitar Yadav being admittedly junior to them have been promoted by overlooking them.2. Counsel for the petitioners, in this context, has drawn my attention towards the unique procedure adopted by the Chief Engineer of the Patna Water Board, who is view of a decision of the Patna Water Board, dated 30.11.2006 had directed all the concerned Controlling Engineers/Inspectors by his letter, dated 16.12.2006 to submit a report regarding the character and work efficiency of as many as sixteen senior most Pipeline Khalashi including the two petitioners and the respondents 5 & 6. Counsel has...

Dhurub Nath Chaubey Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Patna

Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.1. The sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction dated 31.3.1993 passed by Sri P.K. Sinha, Special Judge, under the Essential Commodities Act, Muzaffarpur in connection with Sariya P.S. Case No. 158 of 1988 whereby the appellant was found guilty under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months.A prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act was launched against the appellant on the inspection of the Block Supply Officer along with other officials of Supply Department in premises of the appellant on 1.10.1988. The matter was reported and prosecution report was lodged by the Block Supply Officer alleging therein that the at the time of inspection shop was found not opened on query the younger brother of the appellant disclosed the appellant had gone out and thereafter he opened the shop for inspection. No stock was made available. The appellant's brother...

Sheo Pujan Rai and ors. Vs. Ram Ekbal Rai @ Ekbal Rai and ors.

Court: Patna

Reported in: AIR2008Pat50; 2008(1)BLJR688

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Learned Counsel for the opposite parties.This Civil Revision has been filed against order dated 03.04.2006, by which the learned Subordinate Judge, 4^th Motihari, allowed the petition filed by the plaintiff-opposite parties for amendment of the plaint of Title Suit No. 23 of 1964 at the stage of preparation of the final decree.2. The aforesaid title suit was filed by the opposite parties for partition of the suit properties, which was decreed on 12.07.1969, whereafter the petition for preparation of final decree was filed and the same was dismissed for default on 29.06.2000 but it was subsequently restored on 27.04.2005. Thereafter, on 01.03.2006 the plaintiffs filed an amendment petition only for the purpose of adding some more lands in the schedule of the plaint, for which partition was sought. The said amendment has been allowed and some plots of land have been ordered to be added to the schedule of the plaint, which is subject for pa...

Baban Ram Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Mihir Kumar Jha, J.1 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the State.The petitioner is aggrieved by order of suspension passed on 12.11.2005 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application.Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that upon examination of facts, it can be very well deciphered that as a matter of fact, the work entrusted to him was completed and there was no occasion for the Department and the Authorities to file a criminal case which became the basis of his suspension as stated in the impugned order, dated 12.11.2005. Counsel has further submitted that though he has been paid subsistence allowance during the pendency of this writ application, such payment is not in terms of the rules and he is still entitled for payment of some additional amount on the head of subsistence allowance.2. From the tenor of the order of suspension, it is clear that the petitioner has been put under suspension on account of pendency of a criminal case against him. It is an admitted fact th...

Musarat Jahan and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and anr.

Court: Patna

Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.1. The petitioners who are wife and daughter of O.P. No. 2 has moved against order dated 20-1-2007 in M.R. No. 42 of 2004 whereby the learned principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani, has directed O.P. No. 2 to pay maintenance to petitioner No. 1, the wife, for period commencing from 3-11-2004 to 13-5-2005, i.e. from the date of filing of the petition of maintenance till the date of filing of show-cause in which opposite party claimed that he has already divorced her. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order by which maintenance was allowed only till petitioner No. 2, daughter of petitioner No. 1 attains majority.2. The main issue involved in this case are (i) whether the divorce is to be conclusively accepted from the date of filing written statement/show cause by husband wherein claim of divorce has been made as has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Abdul Mannan v. Saira Khatoon reported in 2000 (2) PLJR 320. (ii) whether un...

Smt. Kusum Kumari and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State.2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders dated 9.5.1998 and 9.6.1998 passed in Ceiling Case No. 15 of 1974-75/1 of 1995-96 as affirmed by the Collector, Arwal in Ceiling Appeal Case No. 9/D.M./2002-2003.3. Land Ceiling Case No. 94 of 1964-65 was instituted against the original landholder Govind Prasad Singh who died during pendency of the same and was substituted by his legal heirs. On 23.12.1970 the land ceiling case was dropped finding that the landholder had no excess lands. In 1973 the proceedings were reopened and a fresh Land Ceiling Case No. 15/74-75/448/73-74 was instituted which was again dropped on 31.10.1974 holding that the landholder was entitled to three units; one for himself and one each for his son, petitioners 2 and 3. The landholder having been deceased was substituted by his wife, who is petitioner No. 1.4. For the purpose of the present controversy suffice i...

Bhagwan Prasad Singh Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Kishore K. Mandal, J.1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to promote him on the post of Circle Officer w.e.f., 1.7.1978. According to him on this date persons junior to him were considered and promoted on the said post. A further prayer has been made to grant him all consequential benefits including arrears of salary etc., upon grant of such promotion.According to the petitioner he was initially appointed on 15.12.1967 as Collection Peon on seasonal basis. Subsequently, he was considered and promoted as Tehsildar w.e.f., 10.10.1979. It has further been asserted that the seniority list of Collection Peons was prepared in which the petitioner's name figured at serial No. 70. According to the petitioner one Sri Jagdish Pd. Mehta was appointed on the post of Collection Peon in the Revenue Department on 15.1.1968 on Seasonal basis and immediately within a period of one year he was promoted to the post of Tehsildar w.e.f., 17.8.1968. Similarly...

Neelu Gupta Vs. State Bank of India and anr.

Court: Patna

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. Petitioner has taken cash credit facility from the State Bank of India who was to run a shop. As per policy of the State Bank of India the goods in the shop had to be hypothecated and was insured by the bank. Soon after getting the cash credit facility there was a theft in the shop. When in spite of the obligation on the part of the State Bank of India to pursue the insurers claim, nothing was done the petitioner moved the District Consumer Forum, Patna for settlement of its insurance claim. In those proceedings the respondent State Bank of India was also a party. In those proceedings order was passed granting compensation along with interest and the entire amount awarded was paid by the insurance company directly to the State Bank of India for the credit of the petitioner along with interest. It appears on petitioners account still there was some dues with the State Bank of India. The State Bank accordingly filed a certificate proceedings being certificate...

Khagaria Municipality and anr. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.1. Heard.2. Khagaria Municipality is the writ petitioner challenging the order of the Collector, Khagaria whereby the Collector has refused to transfer the right to collect tolls in respect of the public Baluahi bus stand adjacent to the national highway to the Municipality. The Collector has pointed out the distinction between vesting of property with the State and the right to give or perform municipal functions vis-a-vis the Municipality. It is submitted on behalf of the Municipality that by virtue of Section 11A of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act 1922 and the corresponding provisions of Section 45 of the Bihar Municipal Act 2007, Municipality has the duty and obligation to provide municipal functions to public areas and that being so the right to realize tolls in respect of those areas must also vest in it. State, on the other hand, submits that vesting of property and collecting tolls are matters entirely different from duty and obligation to provide M...