Rajasthan Court January 1978 Judgments
Dayal Chand and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN3
M.L. Joshi, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks to pray for quashing the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar dated 2-3-76 affirming the order of the learned Collector, Sri Ganganagar dated 15 7-1975 which in its turn had approved the order of the S.D.O. dated 3-1-1975, in the alternative it has been prayed that if the petition under Article 226 is not held to be maintainable, then the petition may be treated as revision. The petitioner has brought this composite petition as there was divergence of opinion prevailing amongst the various High Courts on the point as to whether a writ petition or revision will lie against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge passed under Section 6C of the Essential Commodities Act The controversy has now been set at rest by the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Thakurdas v. State if Madhya Pradesh : 1978CriLJ1 wherein it bas been held that the revision application will lie against the order of the Session...
Tag this Judgment!Champalal Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-13-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN20
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by Champa Lal for quashing the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bali, dated 4th August, 1977, whereby cognizance of an offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was taken against the petitioner.2. The relevant facts giving rise to this application may be briefly stated as follows : The petitioner is a partner in a firm known as M/s. Lalita Hardware Bhandar, Phalna. Shri Bhanwar Lal is the other partner of this firm. The firm deals in hardware, colour, paints glassware, sanitary goods, building material, cement ware etc. On 9th June 1976, at about 10 5 a.m., Shyamlal, Inspector, inspected the god own of the firm upon receiving a credible information that Bhanwar Lal, partner to the firm had sold away 5 bags of cement of Chetak Factary to Govind Ram at the rate of Rs. 24/, per bag and obtained a sum of Rs. 100/-, as part payment there of...
Tag this Judgment!Gulu Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)36
M.L. Joshi, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constition of India praying for quashing the impugned order dated 26.8.1974 (Ex. 1) passed by the respondent No. 2, It has been further prated in the petition that the non-petitioners be restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the land in dispute.2. The material facts which are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the petition are as follows. The petitioner was allotted 25 bighas of land comprising Murbba No. 137/45 in Chak No. 8K in Tehsil Vijaynagar, District Sri Gangnagar. It is alleged that after the allotment of the aforesaid land, the petitioner invested thousands of rupees in levelling and in improving the land in question and has been paying price of the said land in instalment and has paid one instalment of Rs. 840/-.3. The case of the petitioner is that the non-petitioner No. 2 without giving any notice to the petitioner has cancelled the allotment in respect of the aforesaid land on the ground that the...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Kishan Acharya Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-12-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)190
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the Border Commissions, Rajasthan Jodhpur keeping in abeyance the temporary promotion of the petitioner to the post of Office Assistant in the Office of the Collector Jaisalmer and the order passed by the Collector Jaisalmer finally setting aside the same The petitioner, who was working as a select ion grade Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Collector, Jaisalmer was promoted to the post of Office Assistant in a temporary capacity by the order of the Collector, Jaislamer dated August 29, 1968. But on a complaint made by some other employee, the Border Commissioner Rajasthan, Jodhpur by his order dated March 3, 1969 directed that the order of the Collector, Jaislamer regarding the temporary promotion of the petitioner be kept in abeyance till further orders. The matter was alternately referred to the Board of Revenue & the Secretary of the Board by his letter dated November 12, 1971 intimated to the Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!S.C. Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-10-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)58
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner entered the service of the State of Rajasthan as a Computer Grade II in the Irrigation Department on November 21, 1957. He was confirmed on the aforesaid post by the order dated June 21, 1963 with effect from January 1, 1954 which is obviously a mistake as the petitioner could not have been confirmed with effect from a date prior to November 21, 1957 when he entered Government service. But then, by another order dated November 29, 1973, the confirmation of the petitioner was altered to April 12, 1961. The petitioner passed A.M.I.E. examination, which is equivalent to a degree in engineering in the year 1963 and thus he had become eligible for appointment to the the post of Assistant Engineer. He approached the Chief Engineer Irrigation, soon after passing the A.M.I.E. Examination requesting him that the petitioner should be promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer as he had become eligible for the same. The Chief Engineer, by his letter dated November ...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Chand Kalla Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)45
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was working on the post of District Medical and Health Officer, Barmer on November 7, 1968 when he attained the age of 55 years. Much prior to the aforesaid date, the petitioner, Dr. Kalla by his letter dated December 15, 1967 (Ex. R.2) brought it to the notice of the Director of Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur that he would attain the age of 55 years on November 7, 1968 and that proper action may be taken in that matter. The Director, Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, by his letter dated July 26, 1968 (Ex. R.4) recommended to the State Government that the petitioner may be allowed to continue in service upto the age of 58 years as he was mentally and physically fit to discharge his duties. In view of the recommendation made by the Director, Medical and Health Services, the petitioner continued to perform the duties and functions of his office of District Medical and health Officer, in anticipation of Government sanction. However, it...
Tag this Judgment!Pukhraj Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)9
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner seeks to challenge by this writ petition the amendment introduced in Rule 7 by the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service (Amendment) Rules 1973, vide notification dated 22nd February 1973 and has further prayed that the respondents be restrained from making any promotions to the post of Naib-Tehsildar on the basis of the aforesaid amendment made in Rule 7 of the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service Rules 1956. It has how come to the notice of this court that the amendment made in Rule 7 by the notification dated 22/2/73 is no longer in force. The provisions of Rule 7 introduced in the Rajasthan Tehsildars Service Rules by the notification dated 22/2/73 stand superseded by the Rajasthan Tehsildars Service (Amendment) Rules 1976 published vide notification dated 17th December 1976 in Rajasthan Rajpatra of the same date. By the aforesaid notification dated 17/12/76 existing Rule 7, which was introduced by the earlier notification dated 2/2/73, has been entirely substituted & ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandan Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-05-1978
Reported in: 1978(11)WLN1
K.D. Sharma, J.1. Chandan Singh & Uchhab Singh petitioners have applied for bail by was of an application under Section 499, CrPC. The two petitioners stand involved in a criminal case State v. Chandan Singh And Ors. under Sections 147, 148, 307, 326, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 149, IPC which is pending in the court of the Chief Judicial. Magistrate, Jodhpur. In the aforesaid case the two petitioners were admitted to bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. It was alleged that, while remaining, on bail, they threatened to kill one of the eye-witnesses, namely, Kheta Ram, in case he appeared in the witness-box to give evidence against them and in this manner tried to destroy the evidence which prosecution proposed to lead in support of its case. Kheta Ram was threatened and terrorised in the night between 1st and 2nd December, 1977 inside his room. He lodged a first information report of the incident with Police Station, Shastri Nagar on 2nd December, 1977. On the basis of t...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammed Safi Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)134
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner, who was employed in the Indian Air Force, was discharged from service w.e.f. June 20, 1972 and his grievance is that the order of his discharge is illegal and deserves to be quashed. The petitioner was initially enrolled in the Indian Air Force as a Combatant Airman on November 18, 1963 and he subsequently worked there in various capacities, such as Air craftsman Class II, Aircraftsman Class I, leading Air craftsman and Corporal His original appointment was for a period of nine years as a regular Airman and thereafter for six years as a reserved personnel According to the petitioner, the regular period of his engagement was subsequently enlarged to 15 years. On April 8, 1972, a discharge order was passed authorizing the Station Commander Indian Air Force Station, Sambra, to discharge the petitioner from service after allowing him to avail of the full leave which might be due to him In pursuance of the aforesaid order, a discharge certificate was issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Khubilal Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Jan-02-1978
Reported in: 1978WLN(UC)119
D.P. Gupta, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Prosecuting Sub Inspector in the police department of the State of Rajasthan on June 6, 1955. Selection for promotions to the post of Prosecuting Inspector took place in the year 1972 & the petitioner was one of the candidates eligible for promotion to the aforesaid posts of Prosecuting Inspectors. The petitioner was successful at the qualifying examination for promotion held under Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). There after, he was interviewed and his record of service was also considered by the committee, constituted for making selections in accordance with the provisions of Rule 24 of the Rules. Under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 24 of the Rules, the committee was enjoined to prepare a list of suitable candidates who secured 45/- marks in record and interview as a whole and 50/- marks in the total aggregate of written test, outdoor examination and the record and inter...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›