Rajasthan Court October 1999 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Som Dutta Purohit Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-08-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN527
Bhagwati Prasad, J.1. In these two appeals, the learned Counsel for the appellants have raised grievance that Rule 21C of the Rajasthan Service Rules (For short 'the R.S.R.') is violative of provision of Article 309 of the Constitution of India. This question was not before the learned Single Judge. By seeking amendment, in writ petition, at appellate level, this question was raised.2. The learned Counsel for the appellants has stressed that under Rule 21C of the R.S.R., the provision has been made to felicitate the State Government to pass an order whereby an employee can be asked to deposit any amount of arrears of pension/family pension and dearness relief in the General Provident Fund Account. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that this power conferred on the State Government by Rule 21C of the R.S.R. empowers the State to requisition the property vested in the appellants.3. As and when the petitioners-appellants become entitled to receive the arrears, the arrear...
Gulshan Ali and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1025
ORDERG.L. Gupta, J. 1. Through this misce. petition, petitioners seek quashment of the F.I.R. No. 1/94 of P. S. Sadar, Bikaner and the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 394/95 pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bikaner Under Section 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B, IPC.2. The facts of the case may be put in narrow compasections On 27-12-93 Raisa Bano lodged a written report to the Superintendent of Police, Bikaner stating that her husband Yunus Ali had purchased a plot in Soor Sagar, Bikaner on 22-7-88 by a registered sale deed and he was doing his business on the two shops constructed thereon but on 2-5-92 he expired and Yasin Ali (brother of her husband) and Gulhasan (father of her husband) forcibly took possession of the shops and they have fabricated a false document alleged to have been executed in their favour by her husband late Yunus Ali on 12-8-88. This report was sent to the S.H.O., P. S. Sadar where F.I.R. No. 1/94 was registered. During the investiga...
Jay Narayan Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-07-1999
Reported in: 2000CriLJ1054
ORDERMohd. Yamin, J. 1. This is a revision petition preferred by petitioner accused Jay Narayan who was convicted for offence under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate). Sojat vide his judgment dated 12-8-1998. He was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo one month's simple imprisonment for adulteration of mixed milk and sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for not having licence and thus contravened Rule 50 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter referred as 'the Rules'). Both are punishable under Section 16 of the Act.2. Briefly stated, facts are that on 23-10-1988 Mohanlal Purohit, Food Inspector, Sojat checked the petitioner accused who was carrying two drums of mixed milk on his motorcycle No. RSL-216. One of the...
D.C.M. Shriram Ind. Ltd. and Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj117; 2000(2)WLC281
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J. 1. All the writ petitioners are aggrieved by the same impugned notification dated 17-5-1995 passed by the State of Rajasthan by which notification the price / charges for water supply in bulk for industrial purposes has been raised from Rupees 10/- per 1000 CFT to Rs. 20/- per 1000 CFT. 2. On the basis of the said notification, the petitioners were given the bill of water charges vide Annexures 17 and 18 and prayer has been made to quash the submission of bill. Copy of the impugned notification is attached as Annexure-19. 3. All the petitioners are the registered companies engaged in the manufacture of certain products in the State of Rajasthan. The facts and law of challenge involved are similar and identical. For reference the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 81/96 J. K. Synthetics v. State of Rajasthan.4. The factories of the petitioners require raw water for industrial purposes. For regulating the irrigation and drainage in the State of Ra...
Vishwanath Gopal Palshikar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(2)WLN258
Shivaraj V. Patil, C.J.1. Heard the petitioner party in person.2. The petitioner is a Hon'ble Sitting Judge of this High Court. He has filed the writ petition and has prayed that this Court be pleased to-(a) call for the records from the respondent-Union of India pertaining to the appointment and transfer of the petitioner as a Judge of the High Court of Bombay to the Judge of the Rajasthan High Court and on perusal of the same; (b) quash the transfer order Annex. C by a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction being unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary; (c) issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to examine the policy of transfer and retransfer of all the transferred Judges transferred in the year 1994 without discrimination and malice; and (d) declare that the opinion given by the Supreme Court under Article 143 being unconstitutional, is not binding on the President of India; (e) declare that the additions made to A...
Jaswant Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj97; [2001(89)FLR1070]; 2000(4)WLC544
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J. 1. The petitioner submitted an application to the respondent No. 3 seeking admission in Polytechnic College for diploma course conducted by the respondents and in pursuance of that application, he received an Interview call letter dated 12-8-99 in which he was placed at S. No. 395 in the provisional merit list in the Scheduled Caste category and at the same time he was allotted a provisional merit No. 3321 in the general category. A photostat copy of the petitioner's application form is produced by the learned counsel Mr. Kalla for the respondent-department which is taken on record. 2. On the date of interview i.e. 24-8-99, the petitioner was given another form for the purpose of choice of the subjects. 3. At the time of interview, the Board checked all necessary documents and asked the petitioner to produce the bona fide certificate and record of the previous examination as well as caste certificate issued by the authority whose office is situated in Rajasthan as...
St. Anne's School Society Vs. Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur and Anr ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj70
ORDERB.J. Shethna, J.1. The petitioner St. Anne's School Society has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying that the Resolution of the Urban Improvement Trust dated 27-4-1995 (Annex. 11) and the order of allotment dated 12-10-95 (Annex. 12) allotting land to the respondent No. 2 -- Sri Nakoda Parshwanath Jain Mahavidyalaya and consequential licence issued to it, be declared invalid and it may be quashed. It is further prayed that the respondent-UIT may be directed to allot the remaining land of 10,200 sq. mts, out of the plot in question to the petitioner.2. At this stage, it may be stated that earlier also, this very petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1762/96 before this Court on 23-5-1996, praying that the respondent UIT be directed to allot rest of the plot in question to the petitioner and it may be restrained from allotting land of plot in question to any one else. Notice was ordered to be issued in that petition and in response to that, repl...
Sukhpal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: II(2000)DMC575; 2000(2)WLN302
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. Both these applications arise out of FIR No. 46/98 under Sections 302 and 201,1.P.C., P.S. Datwas Distt. Tonk. Both are, therefore, disposed of by this common order.2. Smt. Surta deceased was married with Basram s/o Nanda about 6 years back. Her Gona ceremony took place about 2 years back. It is alleged that she was treated with cruelty by her husband and his other relatives particularly Smt. Noorka, the mother-in-law. On 25.5.1998 Ram Karan, the father of the deceased had gone to bring her to his house but she was not sent with him on the ground that the groundnut crop was yet to bereaped. It is further alleged that after the return of Ram Karan from the village of the applicants, Smt. Surta was beaten and then taken to a doctor in a tractor but since she had died on the way to the hospital, she was brought back to the village and without informing the complainant of her death, her dead body was disposed of by fire. Ram Karan came to know of the above fact about...
Miss Sushila Garg Vs. State and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-06-1999
Reported in: 2000(3)WLN530
Shivraj V. Patil, C.J.1. In this writ petition, grievance of the petitioners is that respondents-State have upgraded the school situated at Bood within the District Chittorgarh, Panchayat Samiti, Gangrar. An order was issued by the State Government vide Annex. 1 and Annex. 2 and consequently, school was opened and the petitioners obtained admission in relevant classes.2. The grievance of the petitioners is that Annex. 7 Dated 9.7.1999 was issued by the respondent-State. By this order the upgradation of the school at Bood was withdrawn. After having upgraded the school at Bood, no order prejudice to the students of Bood School could be passed by the respondents-State.3. Notices were issued to the respondents-State who had joined the issue and stated that in fact, State Government proposal contained the upgradation of a school at Rood. The proposal was approved for upgradation of School at Rood. The proposal was contained in a sheet prepared by the respondent-Department. The proposals we...
Murlidhar Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Oct-05-1999
Reported in: AIR2000Raj170
ORDER1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16-8-99 so far it relates to declaring 5th and 6th October, 1999 to be the dry days for the purpose of sale of liquor.2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. Petitioner has been awarded the exclusive privilege for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 for retail and wholesale sate of country liquor, Indian-made foreign liquor and beer vide contract-order dated 27-5-99 (Annexure 1). During the period of election of Lok Sabha, the Government of Rajasthan has passed the order dated 16-8-99 (Annexure 2) that days of polling and counting of votes, i.e. 6-10-99, and the day preceding the counting day, i.e. 5-10-99, shall remain dry days. Polling day has already passed. Thus, the present petition has been filed on various grounds for quashing the order declaring 5th and 6th October, 1999 as dry days.3. It has been averred by the petitioner that to maintain law and order situation on the relevant days, the administr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »