Rajasthan Court August 1997 Judgments
Ram Prasad Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-13-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC401; 1997(2)WLN272
J.C. Verma, J.1. The petitioner, who is B.Sc. in Agriculture from the Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner and had also passed Higher Secondary (Agriculture) examination in the year 1988 in First Division, registered with the employment exchange and being eligible, had applied for the post of Agriculture Supervisor in pursuance of the advertisement Annex. 1. He was called for interview on 17.6.1993. Certain candidates were selected. It is submitted by the petitioner that out of 90 appointees, 50 candidates were such who were holding qualifications much lesser than the petitioner i.e. Senior Secondary or Senior Higher Secondary and were included in the select list. The petitioner wants to submit that the higher qualification in Agriculture were totally ignored whereas persons possessing lower qualifications were appointed as per the order dated 15.9.1993. It is stated that as per the advertisement dated 8.7.1993, the minimum qualification required for the post of Agriculture Super...
Tag this Judgment!Sujan Singh Vs. R.S.R.T.C. and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ612Raj; 1998(1)WLC294; 1997(2)WLN283
Amaresh K.U. Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.2. This special appeal is directed against the order dated June 20, 1986 passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3151/ 1984 Sujan Singh v. R.S.R.T.C. and Ors., whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution was warranted.3. The facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below --4. The appellant Sujan Singh was in the employment of the respondent No. 1 since 1979. He was holding the post of a driver. On January 31, 1982 he was working as driver on bus No. RJG 3764, which was to carry passengers from Munaba to Barmer. Shri Deravar Singh was working as conductor on the aforesaid bus on January 31, 1982. When the bus reached Ashada, which was at a distance of 20 K.ms. before Barmer, ...
Tag this Judgment!Smt. Tara Devi Vs. Smt. Sudesh Chaudhary
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj59; 1998(1)WLC186; 1997(2)WLN324
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th Jan., 1997 passed by the learned single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4585/1997 Smt. Sudesh Chaudhary v. Civil Judge and another, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 Smt. Sudesh Chaudhary was allowed and the judgment dated 3rd October, 1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Rai Singh Nagar was set aside and the election of the respondent No. 1 was held to be valid, to the office of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, 4 BLD. District Shri Ganganagar.3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be summarised as below.4. The respondent No. 1 (petitioner) Smt. Sudesh Chaudhary contested the election of the Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat. 4 B.L.D. district Shri Ganganagar. In the election there were four candidates, namely Smt. Sudesh Kumari (respondent No. 1), Smt. Tara Devi (appel...
Tag this Judgment!Kailash Talkies Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj1
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Civil Special Appeal is dirccted against the judgment dated 6th February, 1995 passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6684/92, M/s. Kailash Talkies v. State of Rajas than, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant (petitioner) was dismissed on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order Anncxure-8 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The facts of the case may be briefly summarised as below :- 3. The appellant is the owner of a Picture Hall known as Kailash Talkies situated in Kapasan, District Chittorgarh. On 30th August, 1988 at 7-45 p.m. the Commercial Taxes Officer Shri Samrath Lal Panwar made an inspection of Kailash Talkies in presence of Shri Jagdish Prasad Borgama, brother of one of the partners and found that at that time, the picture 'Parwana' was being exhibited. It was also found ...
Tag this Judgment!Deo Kishan Vs. U.i.T., Bikaner and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: AIR1998Raj193
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19th Dec. 1994 passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5655/94 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the writ petition had arisen out of contractual obligation and the petitioner desired a direction that the respondents may be asked to execute lease deed in his favour. It was also observed by the learned single Judge that the writ petition was belated.3. The learned counsel for the appellant (petitioner) has submitted that both the groundson which writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, were not sufficient to dismiss the writ petition because the right of the appellant to get lease deed executed in his favour did not arise from any private contract but it had its origin in the Rules made by the Government under the U....
Tag this Judgment!Girdhari Lal and anr. Vs. the State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN256
B.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioners-accused have filed this revision against the judgment and order dt. 15.9.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 2/93 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners and confirming the judgment and order dt. 10.12.1993 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur in case No. 208/90 by which the petitioners came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'Act') and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months SI.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Garg has raised two contention in this petition. (1) that the complaint was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation of three months of the commission of an offence, which is bailed under Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948. (2) that the substance of the accusation was not read over to both the accused in their statements under Section 313 C...
Tag this Judgment!Jagraj Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(2)WLC534; 1997(2)WLN221
Amaresh Ku. Singh, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.2. This petition under Section 482. Cr.P.C. is directed against the orders dated 19th June, 1997, 4th July, 1997 and 29th July, 1997 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Junior Division) Anupgarh, in criminal case No. 168/1996 State v. Jagraj Singh and Ors. whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate adjourned the hearing of the case from time to time for the purpose of disposing of the application filed by the accused-petitioners for dropping proceedings in accordance with the directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Common cause' A Registered Society through its Director v. Union of India and Ors. 1996 Criminal Law Reporter [SC] Page 430.3. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that even in the absence of application by the accused-petitioner it was the duty of the learned Judicial Magistrate to have complied with the provisions give...
Tag this Judgment!Kishorilal Mathur Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: 1997(2)WLN225
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. Petitioner, who is a judicial officer and a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service, has challenged the adverse entries recorded in his annual confidential report for the year 1991, communicated to him vide letter dated 8.2.1993 contained in Annex. 1 to the writ petition and additional adverse entry for the same year vide letter date 19.3.1993 contained in Annex. 5 to the petition.2. Petitioner was posted as a Civil Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer from 6.6.1990 to 10.1.1992. After his transfer from Jaisalmer to Churu, the learned Inspecting Judge of Jaisalmer made the inspection of the Court at Jaisalmer on 27.4.1992 and made the inspection note, which is contained in Annex. R/l to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Learned District Judge also submitted the inspection report, which forms part of Annex. 1 to the petition. On the basis of that, aforesaid adverse entries were made in petitioner's A.C.R. Adverse entry communicated to the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Singh and ors. Vs. Peerulal
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC123; 1997(2)WLN253
B.J. Shethna, J.1. This revision petition is filed by the petitioners, who are public servants. Petitioner No. 1 is Under Secretary, No. 2 is Collector, Customs, No. 3 is Superintendent, Central, Excise and Customs, No. 4 is Inspector, Central Excise No. 5 is Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise. No. 6 is Assistant Collector, Customs and Central Excise, No. 7 is Sepoy. All the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 31.5.1995 passed by the learned Addl. Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jodhpur in Criminal Complaint No. 1409/94 (original No. 5238/84) filed by the non-petitioner rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 155 of the Customs Act.2. This matter has got a chequerred history. On 2nd March, 1983, the Custom Officers, Custom Division, Jodhpur seized a Jonga No. RRN 8716 on the Jodhpur Jaisalmer road. Three persons viz., Aadam Khan, Khuda Bux and Lake Khan were found sitting in the jeep. It was found that the jeep was used for c...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Ramlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-1997
Reported in: 1998(1)WLC738; 1997(2)WLN255
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition, the petitioner, who is a M.S. Doctor, has challenged the order dated 6.5.97 by which he was asked to report in the Secretariat and await his posting orders. The petitioner has, in his petition, joined the Health Minister of the Government of Rajasthan along with the Joint Director. Allegations of malafides have been made in the petition. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the order, though it directs that the petitioner should await posting, virtually transfers the petitioner. The transfer is asked at the instance of the Minister and, therefore, is motivated and hence malafide. It is alleged that the transfer is based on certain reports of complaints and the petition could not have been transferred on the basis of those reports as they are not in any manner conclusive in nature.2. Show cause notice was issued and the operation of the. order dated 6.5.1997 was stayed.3. In reply, it has been contended in para 3, that the petitioner is n...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »