Rajasthan Court August 1980 Judgments
Bal Mukand Arora and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-30-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj95
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J. 1. A common question of law is involved in these writ petitions, regarding the validity of charging of dead-rent by the State of Rajasthan and its functionaries under the provisions of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1077 (hereinafter called to be as the 'Concession Rules'), and Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter called to be as 'the Act of 1957'). A bunch of 12 writ petitions, in which validity of the charging of dead rent was challenged, came up for consideration before this Court in Atmaram Bilochi v. State of Rajasthan Civil Writ Petn. No. 955 of 1980 (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Sidhu), on 8th August, 1980, it was held that the Government of Rajasthan was authorised by law to collect and levy, 'dead-rent'. It was then held that the dead-rent is a kind of minimum rent or royalty with this difference that the rent, called royalty, is a varying charge based on the value of the product, and the rent, called dea...
Tag this Judgment!Deviram S/O Mooliya Vs. Election Tribunal Gangapur and Khuda Bux S/O H ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-29-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN628
Guman Mal Lodha, J.1. Petitioner, Devi Ram, a defeated candidate in the Election of Sarpanch to the Gram Panchayat, Ahmedpur; has filed this writ petition, after an unsuccesssful attempt to unseat elected candidate Shri Khuda Bux, respondent No. 2, who won by a margin of 145 votes. Mr. Purohit, learned Advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the Election Tribunal has committed serious illegality in deciding Issue No. 3 against the petitioner. Issue No. 3 reads as under:Kya chunava Adhikari ne niyamo men availna ki Tatha Galat Tour se Gangan kiThe principal contention of the petitioner in respect of this issue, is that the time for counting was fixed at 8 p.m. but the votes were counted at 11 p.m. and that the petitioner was not allowed to enter the premises, where the counting took place.2. The Tribunal has discussed the evidence on this point and disbelieved the evidence of the petitioner.3. Even on the assumption that the petitioner's evidence can be believed or may be believ...
Tag this Judgment!Commissioner of Expenditure Tax Vs. Gopi Chand B. TholiA.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1980
Reported in: (1980)18CTR(Raj)330; 1980()WLN630
M. L. Shrimal, J. - In relation to asst. yr. 1960-61 notice u/s 13(2) of the Expenditure Tax Act, 1957 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act), was served on M/s. Gopi Chand B. Tholia, Gheewalon-ka-Rasta, Jaipur (to be referred to hereinafter as the assessee). Inspite of the notice having been served, no return was filed. A notice u/s 15(4) of the Act was issued on February 16, 1962 and was served on the assessee. A second notice for hearing on February 28, 1962, was again served on the assessee. Rajendra Kumar Tholia appeared for the assessee. Though no return was filed, yet an oral plea was raised that the joint Hindu family stood partitioned by an award dated January 3, 1958.2. The assessees attention was invited, by the Expenditure Tax Officer, Central Circle-II, New Delhi, to the fact that one of the family properties, named and styled as Tholia Garden was not dividend among the family members in definite portions by metes and bounds. The alleged partition, therefore was not co...
Tag this Judgment!Joraram Vs. Smt. Mohini and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-27-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)320
M.B. Sharma, J.1. This is a husband's revision arising out of the proceedings under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which corresponds to Section 125 of the new Code, The learned Sessions Judge, while accepting the revision of the non-petitioner (wife) has ordered a maintenance of Rs 100/-per month to Smt. Mohini and has further awarded a maintenance of Rs 50/-per month to each of the two minor daughters. The learned Magistrate had dismissed the application of the non-petitioner.2. Some facts are no longer in dispute and they arc these: Smt. Mohini, the non-petitioner, is the married wife of Joraram, the petitioner and out of the wedlock two daughters were horn and each of them is a minor and is residing with Smt Mohini. At the time when the application under Sections 488 CrPC, 1898 was filed on May 22, 1973 by the non-petitioner, the two daughters were aged 8 years and 11 months respectively. As per the case of the non-petitioner she was living with her parents sinc...
Tag this Judgment!Harphool Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-25-1980
Reported in: AIR1981Raj8
ORDERGuman Mal Lodha, J.1. 'Mahar-Manu' Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar's success in providing 'reservation'; 'for' poor and downtrodden, 'Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes', who are centuries old sufferers of oppression and repression, suppression and consequent depression, and who have been, ruthlessly crushed and brushed aside, by the society; have been undermined, by ingenuity of superminds. Dr. Ambedkar, was Mahar-Manu, because he was 'Mahar' by birth and by drafting the great Indian Constitution, he rose to the heights of 'Manu'. Mahrishi Manu again was a Non Brahmin who gave 'Manu Smriti' and formulated Hindu social laws, giving emphasis to (i) the protection of women (ii) Protection of the weak (iii) the equality of man etc. It is in this context, that I have called Dr. Ambedkar 'Mahar Manu' of the modern free India.2. This case is a typical example of the same ingenuity, where a 'Jat' (non Scheduled Caste & Tribes) student could successfully usurp the 'reservation' quota in 'Medical C...
Tag this Judgment!Peerulal Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)354
K.D. Sharma, Actg C.J.1. This is a special appeal filed by Peerulal under Section 18 of he Rajasthan High Court Ordinance against an order of a Single Judge of this Court dated July 14, 1980, by which the writ petition of the petitioner for restraining the Excise and Prohibit on Officer, In charge of District Jodhpur from extending the period of licence in favour of respondent No. 4 for sale of country liquor to authorised persons under Section 31 of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act No 17 of 1969, and for quashing the orders, if any that might have been passed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 during the pendency of the writ petition and for issuance of any direct on or order that might be deemed expedient in the interests of justice, was dismissed.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition, out of which this special appeal arises, may be stated as follows: The petitioner had been dealing in country liquor under a licence issued to him ...
Tag this Judgment!Rewat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-22-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)594
G.M. Lodha, J.1. These two writ petitioner have been filed by Rewat Singh and Kan Singh. Since the learned Counsel Mr. M. Mridul prayed that the point involved in both the cases being identical, they may be considered together, I am deciding both the cases by one common judgment. Both the petitioners were appointed as Amins in the Settlement Department in the year 1955. They were then transferred to the post of Surveyor in the Consolidation Department by order dated 12th August, 1957.2. On 22nd August, 1963, both the petitioners were declared surplus by the Settlement Commissioner cum Director of Consolidation, Rajasthan.3. The above are the undisputed facts of these two cases but hereinafter the dispute arises on the question of future developments in the service carrier of these two petitioners.4. The petitioners' case is that the Absorption Committee absorbed them as Patwari in the Loand Records Department in the year 1963 and against that a representation was sent. These representi...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhan Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-21-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)330
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. The application tinder Section 482 Cr. PG has arisen in the following circumstances.2. One Inder filed a complaint on February 24, 1976 making an accusation that Gordhan Singh, who will hereinafte b(sic) referred to as the petitioner, had committed rape on his wife Kirandevi, and that one Gioraj had commuted an offence against her punishable under Section 323 and 504 IPC. Toe learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint to the officer in charge of Police Station Bayana under Section 156(3) Cr. PC for investigation.3. The investigation by the police into this case ran into some controversy. The Investigating Officer, who was originally entrusted with the investigation, was of opinion than n(sic) officer appears to have been committed by any of the accused persons. Tate opinion was recorded by him on March 15, 1976. The investigation was then transferred to Sub Inspector Hiralal. He was of opinion recorded by him as such on May 11, 1976 that both Gordhan Singh and Gir...
Tag this Judgment!Radhey Shyam Vs. Labour Inspector Jodhpur
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN430
C.M. Lodha, J.1. In this writ petition Radheshyam, a hotel owner has challenged the order of the Minimum Wages Authority, dated 15th July 1980, directing him to pay Rs. 1410/- being the amount of arrears representing the amount less paid than the minimum wages to his various employees.2. The undisputed facts, are that the petitioner is a hotel owner at Jodhpur & some of its employees who were present at the time of inspection by toe labour Inspector, represented on inquiry that the wages which were being paid to them were leis than the minimum wages. On the basis of this inquiry, theLabour lnspector filed an application before the Minimum Wages Authority, Jodhpur. The Inspector was examined and one Bhim Raj, who is alleged to be the Munim, was examined by the petitioner.3. The Minimum WagesAuthority accepted the application of the Labour Inspector so far as she complaint regarding the payment of wages less than the minimum wages ware concerned, but rejected the claim regarding the over...
Tag this Judgment!Ashok Dev Vs. Bishan Swarup
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-20-1980
Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)332
K.S. Sidhu, J.1. This application purports to have been filed under Section 482 Cr. PC for quashing the order dated November 13, 1978, whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 427 and 448 IPC on a police report in accordance with the provisions of Section 190(1)(b) Cr. PC.2. The application is wholly unusual. It will be seen that the impugned order is revisionable order under Sections 397 and 401 Cr. PC and as inch it was open to the petitioner to challenge it by way of a petition of revision before this Court or in the Court of Sessions. The law is well settled that if there is a specific remedy provided in law, the aggrieved party must take recourse to that remedy In that view of the matter the petitioner cannot legitimately invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr. PC to challenge the order in question which as already stated is a revisable order under the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. In substance, the pre...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »