Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ631Raj; 1994(1)WLC1
R.S. Verma, J. for himself and on behalf of Rajendra Saxena, J.1. These two appeals raise questions of vital importance for Hand Pump Mistries engaged in repairs and maintenance of hand-pumps throughout the State of Rajasthan. By consent of all concerned, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. Potable water is the prime necessity for any human civilization to survive. Public Health Engineering Department (for short PHED) was initially charged with the duty of supplying neat and clean drinking water in the State. Hand Pumps were installed throughout the State for this purpose. These hand pumps were being repaired and maintained by the PHED. However, the PHED did not find it convenient and feasible to maintain and repair these handpumps in the far flung rural areas. By virtue of Section 23(2) of Raj. Panchayat Samitis and Zilla Parishad Act, 1959 (for short the Act) read with Entry 4(iii) of the Schedule to the Act, 'provision of drinking water facil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993WLN(UC)246
K.C. Agrawal, J.1. Against the order passed on an application under order 6 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the present revision has been filed.2. Counsel for the petitioner stated that as the facts and details of the partition between the petitioner and the respondents have not been clearly and cogently given, the petitioner is entitled to know about the details of the same. His argument was that the respondents had vaguely, asserted about the partition in the family. Without being given the year or month of the same, it is not possible for the petitioner to pin it down.3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and, in my opinion, the submission is not tenable. The petitioner and the respondents are the brothers and the books of accounts are with the petitioner. From the books of accounts, it can be gathered as to when did the partition took place. It is not the function of the court dealing with revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to judge the corre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994CriLJ2125; 1993WLN(UC)589
ORDERRajesh Balia, J.1. The aforesaid two petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal P. C. (for short hereinafter to be referred as 'the Code') are for quashing the very same proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur as Criminal Case No. 436 of 1980. Hence, they are being disposed of by one common order.2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.3. A First Information Report was lodged on November 28, 1972 by Ramdeen Choudhary, Manager, Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank, Nagaur, Branch-Deedwana, before the Station House Officer, Deedwana. According to F.I.R. Molasar Masala Utpadak Sahkari Samiti Limited, Molasar whose Secretary at the relevant time was Jugal Kishore, took loan of Rs. 33975.19 Paise on August 25, 1971 from the Bank and as security for the said loan grinded red chillies were pledged with the Bank on that very date. The said pledged goods after weighing were stored in boxes and the boxes were kept with B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993WLN(UC)249
N.K. Jain, J.1. This special appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been filed by the appellants against the order of learned Single Judge dt. 29.3.93 whereby while disposing of the writ petition granted 15 days time to the appellant to file an appeal before the Competent Authority and the authority was directed to decide the appeal if so filed objectively without being influence by its prior order.2. This special appeal has been filed on 3.5.93. Notice to show cause was issued on 6.5.93 and in the meanwhile status quo as regards water course and outlet as it existed on that day was maintained. In pursuance of notice Mr. B.C. Mehta, appeared on behalf of the respondents.3. Mr. Saluja, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in directing the petitioners-appellants to first file an appeal before the competent authority and as the competent authority had already taken a contrary view in its administrative capacit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994(1)WLC220; 1993WLN(UC)396
Rajendra Saxena, J.1. Heard.2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 8.7.1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh in Criminal Revision petition No. 55/92(18/89), whereby he dismissed petitioner's Revision Petition in his default. The said Revision Petition was preferred against the order dated 7.7.88 of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate Sujangarh passed in Criminal case No. 227/88, where by he had taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence Under Sections 341, 323/34 I.P.C.3. The petitioner had filed the said Criminal Revision Petition initially in the Court of Sessions Judge, Churu. After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge sent for the record of the lower Court and the case was adjourned number of times for final hearing. Thereafter, the said Criminal Revision petition was transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh before whom on 7.4.92, the petitioner and his Advoca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993WLN(UC)246a
N.K. Jain, J.1. This special appeal Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been directed against the order of learned Single Judge of this Court dt. 26.3.1993 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner against his dismissal by the respondents has been dismissed.2. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this special appeal as alleged by the appellant petitioner are that he is a natural born son of Biharilal of Sr. Madhopur and tailor by caste. In pursuance of advertisement issued by the respondent Bank in the year 1983 the appellant applied vide Anx. 12 for the post of Cashier-cum-clerk alleging to be a member of Scheduled Caste along with a certificate issued by Tehsildar marked as Anx. 13. He was appointed on the said post on 13.2.1984 against Scheduled Caste quota. Notice to show cause was issued to the petitioner on a complaint to which the petitioner filed a reply stating that he was adopted by Bhanwarilal @ Biharilal Meena of Village D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1993Raj220
N.K. Jain, J. 1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is directed against the order dated 11 -5-93 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Udaipur.2. This appeal has been filed on 21-5-93. A notice to show cause was issued on 27-5-93 and in the meanwhile the father respondent was permitted to meet the children but he was not allowed to take the children out of house of the appellant. The appeal has come upbefore us and as agreed the same is heard finally. 3. Mr. Singhvi has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the misc. appeal on the ground that the same has been filed against an interlocutory order. He has relied on Major Raja P. Singh v. Smt. Surendra Kumari, AIR 1991 Raj 133.4. On the other hand Mr. Champawat, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently opposed the objection raised and submitted that since the matter has already been finally adjudicated and no proceedings are pendin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1994CriLJ904
R.S. Verma, J.1. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar has found guilty Sher Singh of offence under Section 302, I.P.C. for committing twin murders, one of his wife Kartaro and the other of his son Nanak. The learned Judge has imposed upon the convict the extreme penalty of death. He has made D.B. Criminal Reference No. 3/1992 for confirmation of the death sentence. Convict Sher Singh has filed D. B. Criminal Jail Appeal No. 387/1992, whereby he challenges the correctness and legality of his conviction and the sentence passed upon him. The murder reference and the jail appeal have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The prosecution story is that Sher Singh was resident of village PM I. Smt. Kartaro was his legally wedded wife and Nanak Ram was his son. Nanak Ram was married to Smt. Veero (P.W. 2). Sher Singh owned about 25 bighas of land at village PM I. Three years prior to the alleged occurrence, Sher Singh divided his land and gave 10 big...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993WLN(UC)236
V.K. Singhal, J.1. All the writ petitions mentioned at Schedule-I are disposed of by this common order because the point involved is the same in nature.2. The petitioners were appointed as general teachers. Two years Teachers Training Diploma of Vidhya Bhawan Kala Sansthan Udaipur was obtained by them. The aforesaid diploma was recognised by the Government of Rajasthan as equivalent to B.S.T.C. vide G.A.D. (Gr. III) Dept. No. 9(63) Sa/Fra/Sa/71 dated 8.2.1973. Similarly, two years' Diploma of Teachers Training of the Govt. Teachers Training School Parsuramdwara was recognised by the Government equivalent to B.S.T.C. vide circular Gramin Vikash and Panchayat Department dated 10.9.1987. It is on the basis of these certificates obtained that the appointment to the teachers were given as general teacher in Panchayat Samiti. The appointment was made on probation. An order dated 30th October, 1992 was issued withdrawing the recognition of the teachers training diploma and the diploma holders...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ673Raj
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated October 10, 1987 passed by the Director, Rajasthan Communications Ltd., for termination of his service.2. The petitioner joined service as a Helper on ad hoc basis with effect from February 8, 1986. He was given regular pay scale of a helper with effect on April 1, 1987. He was appointed on probation by order dated April 25, 1987. The period of probation was fixed as one year and it could be extended at the discretion of the management of the company. During the period of probation, the impugned order dated October 10, 1987 was issued by the respondent-company terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of unsatisfactory performance during the period of probation.3. The petitioner has challenged the order of termination by stating that a direction had been given by the company to various employees including the petitioner to report for duty on September 30, 1987 which was a holiday. None of the employees turn...
Tag this Judgment!