Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1996Raj139
ORDERV.K. Singhal, J.1. All these writ petitions are disposed of by this common order because the questions involved in each of them are common.2. In the State of Rajasthan, there are six medical colleges and number of seats sanctioned for admission in 1995 was 600. In the College at Kota five seats are stated to be vacant; four in respect of the quota of Government of India and one has not joined who was given admission. There are 40 seats in BDS College which have all been filled up few of the petitioners here were given admission in BDS and they have claimed admission in MBBS Course which will be considered in the foregoing paras. In the instructions for the guidance of the candidates intending to appear in PMT, 1995, guidelines for admission were also informed and Clause (2) of the guidelines is as under:--' 2. Reservation of seats:(a) 15% of the seats will be reserved for being filled up by All India Entrance Examination to be conducted by an agency of Government of India.(b) Twen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(1)WLC711; 1996(2)WLN411
R.R. Yadav, J.1. Instant writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from Khasra No. 506 situated in village Kanod, Tehsil and District Jaisalmer measuring 10 Bighas, which is under his occupation and possession.2. Indisputably, the petitioner has been dispossessed from the plot in question vide order dated 25.9.89 Ex.R/4 to the reply passed by Naib Tehsildar, Jaisalmer in Suit No. 20 of 1989 in exercise of his power under Section 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956').3. It is admitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.S. Purohit that irrespective of full knowledge of ejectment order dated 25.9.89, no appeal or revision has been preferred against the ejectment order, therefore, the said order had attained finality.4. Law relating to issue a writ of prohibition now must be taken to be settled that such writs can be issued to Sub-ordinate Courts or Tribunals f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997CriLJ2641
A.S. Godara, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the convict-appellants against the judgment dated 3-11-80 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1. Jodhpur in Sessions Case No. 14/80 whereby the appellants Madho Singh and Lakh Singh have been convicted Under Section. 366, IPC and Madho Singh had been sentenced to 21/2 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, six months' R.I. while Lakh Singh has been released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on his execution of personal bond as well as a surety bond in the sums of Rs. 5000/- each for keeping peace and to be of good conduct.2. Appellants Jethu Singh, Sadul Singh and Heer Singh have been convicted Under Section. 368. IPC and Jethu Singh and Heer Singh have been sentenced to two years' R.I. besides a fine of Rs. 1000/- and, in default of payment of fine, each has been ordered to further undergo six months' R.I.3. Appellant Sadul Singh has also been released on probation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(1)WLC137; 1996(2)WLN300
Arun Madan, J.1. The petitioner, who is serving as a Warder in the Central Jail, Udaipur has filed this writ petition on the grounds inter-alia that the petitioner-appellant was appointed as Warden on two years probation after his selection by the Selection Committee in July, 1977. According to the petitioner- appellant, during the course of his employment his performance had been satisfactory. The services of the petitioner-appellant were terminated vide office order dated 7.7.1989 (Annexure-1). The impugned order was not received by the petitioner-appellant. The petitioner-appellant was ordered to be discharged under Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (here-in- after referred to as the 1966 Rules). During the period of probation the petitioner-appellant's performance was verified to be good. The petitioner-appellant was discharged from service on the ground that he was convicted by the Children's Court, Bharatpur for offences under Sections 377 & 341 of the I.P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(1)WLC253; 1996(2)WLN293
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought direction of the Court for his admission to the post- graduate course of M.Sc. (Agriculture) in the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner. Respondent No. 3 Controller of Examinations, Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner conducted Post-Graduate Entrance Examinations for various courses. The petitioner appeared at the Entrance Examination and was declared passed: he ranked 44th in the order of merit and was placed in the wait list of general category in the Faculty of Agriculture. The petitioner was called for interview for admission at the College of Agriculture, Beachwal (Bikaner) on 18.7.96 at 10 A.M. alongwith his credentials. The petitioner reported before the authorities, but admission was turned down on the ground that he was awarded supplementary in the B.Sc. Agricultural examinations.2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has informed the authorities concerned that he has applied for revaluatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(1)WLC42; 1996(2)WLN387
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The petitioner is an elected Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Ribiya. One Parsaram, Panch of Gram Panchayat, Ribiya had filed a complaint alleging that in the month of February, 1996, the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat had delivered a male child and, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 19 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'), she has incurred a disqualification for continuing as a Sarpanch and, therefore, she may be removed from the post of Sarpanch. The document showing the birth of the child alongwith a certificate issued by the Senior Medical Officer was attached to the complaint. On receipt of the complaint, the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu, has directed the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Churu, to make an enquiry into the allegations levelled in the complaint. The Vikas Adhikari had conducted the enquiry and submitted a report to the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Churu. On 15.5.96, the Chief...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : II(1998)ACC387
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. As common question of law is involved in these revision petitions, they are disposed by this single judgment.2. All these revision petitions, are directed against the orders dated 24.4.1996, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, whereby the applications filed by the claimant respondents under Section 17 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) delay in filing the claims has been condoned.3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant respondent filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur with an application under Section 17 of the Act for condoning the delay. In the application for condonation of delay it was pleaded that at the time of delivery of the subject consignment, there was shortage of sugar, therefore, claim under Section 106 of the Indian Railway Act was preferred by the claimants with the CCS (Claims), Western Railway, Jaipur. But inspite of reminders payment was not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : I(1997)ACC148
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. As common question of law is involved in these revision petitions, they are disposed by this single judgment.2. All these revision petitions are directed against the orders dated 24.4.1996, passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench Jaipur, whereby the applications filed by the claimant-respondent under Section 17 (2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) delay in filing the claims has been condoned.3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant-respondent filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur with an application under Section 17 of the Act for condoning the delay. In the application for condonation of delay it was pleaded that at the time of delivery of the subject consignment, there was shortage of sugar, therefore claim under Section 106 of the Indian Railway Act was preferred by the claimants with the C.C.S. (Claims), Western Railway, Jaipur. But inspite of reminders payment was n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997(1)WLC294; 1996(2)WLN365
R.R. Yadav, J.1. The petitioner by filing the present writ petition questions cancellation of his quarry licence, Anx. 1, by Assistant Mining Engineer, Bijolia District Bhilwara vide his order dated 3.1.1989, Anx.2 to the writ petition.2. Brief facts leading upto filing of the present writ petition are that the quarry licence to quarry No. 81, Sukhpura 'C boundary was renewed on 9.12.1988 for a period upto 31.12.1989. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner received on 10.1.1989 an order from the Assistant Mining Engineer, respondent No. 2, dated 3.1.1989, Anx.2, cancelling his quarry licence without giving any notice to him as envisaged under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 30 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred as the 'Rules of 1986').3. After service of notices a joint return has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the averments made in the writ petition. It is averred in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents that under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1997CriLJ824
ORDERS.C. Mital, J.1. The above petitions pertain to the same FIR No. 204/96 Police Station, Hiranmagari, District-Udaipur under Section 438, Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur rejected the bail petition under Section 438, Cr.P.C. of petitioners No. 1 to 4 of Petition No. 20667 96 on 21 -8-1996 and bail of petitioners of Petition No. 2184/96 was rejected on 30-8-1996. Now the petitioners have approached this Court for anticipatory bail.2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions are that Smt. Sandhya daughter of Harisingh was married to Mahendra Singh son of Shri Nathusingh on 5-6-93 at Udaipur. Shri Harisingh lodged a report on 27-5-96 that after some days of the marriage of her daughter, her husband Mahendra Singh, father-in-law Nathusingh, sisters-in-law Paras Kanwar, Prakash Kanwar, Kalyan Kanwar, Sushri Rajni and mother-in-law Janak Kanwar treated her with cruelly for the demand of dowry i.e. gold and cloths. Two sons-in-law of Nathusingh named Narainsingh an...
Tag this Judgment!