Patna Court September 2008 Judgments
Sunil Kr. Sinha and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-12-2008
Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J.1. This is a batch of 13 writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the validity of the selection process of the Bihar Administrative Service First Limited Competitive Examination 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Selection Process'), conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'BPSC'). All the writ petitions (except Cr.WJC No. 583 of 2007 and CWJC No. 16093 of 2007) have been preferred by unsuccessful candidates, some of whom want cancellation of the selection process from the stage of the advertisement, some other want the selection process from the post-advertisement stage and fresh examination to be held, and still others want the selection process to be upheld and preparation of fresh merit list in accordance with law after excluding the charge-sheeted candidates. Cr.WJC No. 583 of 2007 has been preferred by the successful candidates and pray for the direction that the investigation may b...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Sugapati Devi and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-11-2008
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In all the five writ petitions the common question which arises is whether the Member, Board of Revenue can hear an appeal filed under Section 18(6) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act. 2006 in four cases and Section 70(5) of the said Act in CWJC No. 5814/2008 after coming into force of the Bihar Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2007 with effect from 4.2.2008, by which the powers of the Commissioner to direct such removal have become vested in the State Government and the provisions regarding the appeal from the order of the Commissioner have been deleted.3. In four of the writ petitions the grievance of the petitioners is that after their removal from the post of Mukhiya by various orders and in the fifth case after removal as Adhakshya of Zila Parishad by the order of the Commissioner, they had preferred appeals before the Member, Board of Revenue but in the said appeals either orders have been passed that the Member, Board ...
Tag this Judgment!Mannu Sao Vs. the State of Bihar
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-11-2008
Sudhir Kumar Katriar, J.1. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.12.1987, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif, whereby he has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section 201 of the IPC, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. We shall hereinafter describe the accused Mannu Sao as the appellant.2. On 14.12.1985, at 11.00 AM, a Fardbeyan at the instance of the appellant was recorded by P.W.4 (Hridya Narain Singh), Sub-Inspector of Police of Nalanda Police Station, that he is living with his wife Bimala Devi in his cabin at his agricultural lands in village Mohanpur, he is engaged in the avocation of cultivation. According to the Fardbeyan, he had on that day, at about 9.00 AM, gone over to Nala...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bihar Vs. Sunil Kumar Pandey, Mla
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
1. we would like to begin by reminding ourselves the wise words of the Supreme Court in the case of Special Reference (1965(1) SCR 413:The power to punish for contempt large as it is, must always be exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection. Frequent or indiscriminate use of this power in anger or irritation would not help to sustain the dignity of the Court, but may sometimes affect it adversely. 2. Sunil Kumar Pandey is an elected member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. He is accused in a large number of cases including Karakat P.S. case No. 8 of 1999 (sic 9 of 1999) registered under Section 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. His Counsel is unable to say the exact number of cases pending against him. While he was in judicial custody a production warrant was issued for his production in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj on 25th of April, 2007. What had happened on that date is described in the report of the Superintendent of Police, Rohtas...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnandan Singh and ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
Sheema Ali Khan, J.1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.12.1989/ 8.1.1990 passed by the Director, (Primary Education)-cum-Joint Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna contained in annexure-1.By the said order dated 8.1.1990, the Director, Primary Education found that the persons named in the writ petition are not genuine teachers of Bihar National Academy School,(hereinafter referred to as 'the School') Mahendru, situated in the district of Patna.2. Bihar National Academy School through Uday Krishana Narayan Tetarway had filed a writ application praying therein that the Government should take over the School alongwith four other Schools which are also in the district of Patna. This Court by the order dated 27.7.1983 directed the respondents to take over the management and control of the petitioners' school namely, Bihar National Academy under the provisions of the Act and also stated that the consequences with respect to such take over in a te...
Tag this Judgment!Savitri Devi Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-10-2008
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, State as also private Respondent No. 5.2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 24.11.2000, Annexure-2, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram in Mutation Appeal No. 83 of. 2000-01, whereunder learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sasaram set aside the order dated 3.12.1999, Annexure-1, passed by the Circle Officer, Kargahar mutating the lands in question in favour of the petitioner. She is further aggrieved by the order dated 25.5.2001, Annexure-3, passed by the Collector, Rohtas in Mutation Revision Case No. 68 of 2000, Annexure-3, whereunder he affirmed the appellate order dated 24.11.2000, Annexure-2. Petitioner is the donee of the lands in question vide registered gift deed dated 29.5.1998 executed by Nainbas Kuer, wife of Bilatu, Pathak. The lands in question were recorded in the Khatiyan in the name of the father-in-law of Nainbas Kuer, Satya Narain Pathak who had three sons, namely, Hari Narain P...
Tag this Judgment!Sarita Kumari Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has come to this Court for quashing the decision and the proceedings of the Zila Parishad, Patna dated 11.8.2008 issued by the Respondent No. 4, the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Deputy Development Commissioner on 14.8.2008 (Annexure-3) by which he has declared the motion of no confidence taken up in the said meeting dated 11.8.2008 as having been defeated.3. The short facts of this case are that a special meeting was duly requisitioned by the Zila Parishad, Patna for considering the motion of no confidence against respondent No. 6, the Chairman, Zila Parishad, Patna. The Zila Parishad, Patna has 46 directly elected members. On 11.8.2008 in the special meeting as many as 27 of the directly elected members participated. However, when the voting on the no confidence motion took place three of the said members including the Adhayaksha, Zila Parishad did not participate in [he voting. Out of 24 remaining member...
Tag this Judgment!The State of Bihar and ors. Vs. Santosh Kumar Singh
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Barin Ghosh and C.M. Prasad, JJ.1. Sometimes in 1990, the respondent-petitioner was appointed in a Government School as a Class-IV employee on the strength of an appointment letter issued by the District Education Officer. According to the Rules, the appointing authority in respect of a Class-IV employee is the Headmaster of the School.2. Although, the Headmaster of the School is the appointing authority, but he can appoint a person in a Class-IV post only when the person has been recommended by the Committee constituted by the Rules. The Committee so constituted, in terms of the Rules, can only recommend a person, who has been selected amongst others, after permitting all and sundry to offer themselves for being selected for recommendation.3. The respondent-petitioner worked as such Class-IV employee undisturbed until 8th June, 2001 when by a notice it was held out to the respondent-petitioner that his initial appointment was an illegal appointment. By the said notice, the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Magan Lal Sah Vs. the State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsels for the State Election Commission and the State.The petitioner seeks quashing of the order contained in Memo No. 127 dated 11.3.2002 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-District Election Officer (Urban Body), Samastipur, by which he has rejected the nomination paper filed by the petitioner on 7.3.2002 for the post of the Member of Ward Nos. 1 and 2 of Nagar Panchayat, Dalsingsarai.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, states that since fresh general elections to the Urban Municipal Body have already taken place, hence, stricto sensu the writ application has become infructuous by the passage of time, but it is stated by learned Counsel that the interpretation of the legal provisions of Section 17 of the Bihar Municipal Act, 1922 as amended by the Bihar Municipal (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001, which provision is in pari materia to the prvisions contained in the present Bihar Municipal ...
Tag this Judgment!Sandeep Kumar Tekriwal Vs. State of Bihar and anr.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Sep-09-2008
Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28-6-2008: passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st class. Bhagalpur, in connection with Tr. No. 2853 of 2008, arising out of Kotwali PS Case No. 0152 of 2000, for offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 120B of the I. P. C., whereby his representation under Section 317, Cr. P. C. was not accepted and as such his bail bond was cancelled, and non-bailable warrant (NBW) for arrest was also issued against him.3. The facts of the case in short is as follows:Pursuant to order dated 27-9-2000; passed by the Apex Court in S.L.A. (Cri) No. 3079 of 2000, the petitioner surrendered in the Court below and was released on bail. After taking of cognizance, the matter was transferred to the Court of Md. Sahid Khan, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Bhagalpur for disposal. The petitioner duly appeared before the trial Court on transfer of case, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »