Rajasthan Court November 2000 Judgments
Mishru Vs. Board of Revenue and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC753; 2001(1)WLN471
ORDERShethna, J.(1) Filing of extra set in this petition is dispensed with.(2). Heard the learned counsel for the parties.(3). On the basis of Annex. 1, it was submitted by learned counsel Mr. Jakhar that it was not a deity's land though it is entered in the name of deity but the said land wascultivated by Ghisa who became tenant of the land on abolition of Jagir. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue allowing the appeal filed by the Deity on 26.10.98 (Annex.5) is required to be set aside. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the division bench judgment of this Court in case of Ram Lal vs. Board of Revenue (1).(4). Having carefully gone through the impugned order at Annex.5 passed by the Board of Revenue, it is clear that the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench has no application to the facts of the present case, therefore, 1 have refrained myself from dealing with the same in detail.(5). It was submitted by learned coun...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Mahipal Singh Sisodia
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC294; 2001(2)WLN117
ORDERRathore, J. (1) Delay condoned.(2). Petitioner was appointed as Primary School Teacher vide order daled 17.7.1993 and was posled at Panchayat Samili, Garhi (Banswara), An advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) for making appointment on the posts of Sub Inspectors in Ihe year 1994. Learned counsel for respondent's contention is that earlier to Ihe advertisement issued for the recruitment on the post of Sub Inspectors in the year 1994, no recruitment was made for the post of Sub Inspectors after the year 1989. The respondent becomes eligible for the appointment to the post of Sub Inspector as he possesses the requisite qualification in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the RPSC and the respondent submitted his application for the appoinlment to Ihe post of Sub Inspector. The respondent was called for written test and in pursuance of the call letter for the written test, the respondent appeared in the written examination which was held on 14...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and Others Vs. Mishrilal Sharma
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-23-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC503; 2001(1)WLN689
ORDERMadan, J.1. We have heard this D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 598/96, which has been preferred by the appellants (State of Rajasthan & others)challenging the judgment delivered by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 839/1984, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by quashing the orders dated 21.7.1987 and 21.1.1984.(2). This appeal has been preferred, with inordinate delay of 201 days, though an application has been filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoningthe delay.(3). Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act stipulates that before the delay is condoned, it is mandatory for the party seeking condonation of delay to explain sufficient cause.(4). The reasons which have been taken for condoning the delay by the appellants are as under:-'that the judgment was delivered by the learned Single Judge on 1.2.1993 and certified copy thereof was applied for by the office of the Government Advocate on 3.2.1993. Copy was receiv...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan and anr. Vs. Labour Court, Jodhpur and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: (2001)IILLJ941Raj; 2001(1)WLN468
ORDERShethna, J.1. The petitioners State of Rajasthan and the Assistant Engineer have challenged in this petition the impugned award dated 7.1.99 (Annex.8} passed by the Labour Court, Jodhpur whereby the Labour Court while declaring the termination of the respondent workman had, ordered only compensation of Rs. 27,000/- instead of reinstatement with back wages.(2). On the basis of the impugned order dated 27.7.91 (Annex. 3), learned counsel Mr. Mehta tried to submit that the appointment of the workman was purely on daily wages basis and his services were terminated prior to completion of 240 days.(3). It is a fact that no formal order of appointment of workman was passed while appointing him on daily wages but while terminating his services, the order in writing was passed on 27.7.91 (Annex.3). This is clear that they never wanted the workman to complete 240 days, therefore, only the order at Annex.3 came to be passed. If the workman had completed 240 days, then they could not have in ...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Prasad Vijayvargiya Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj112; 2001(1)WLC412; 2001(1)WLN62
Ar. Lakshmanan, C.J.1. Heard Shri Govind Mathur for the petitioner, Shri R. L. Jangid for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri A. K. Sharma for respondent No. 3.2. Power on behalf of respondent No. 3 was earlier filed by Shri D. D. Thanvi. He wanted to withdraw his power for certain personal reasons. His request was allowed and Shri A. K. Sharma was heard for respondent No. 3.3. This writ petition was filed by one Shri Ram Prasad Vijayvarigiya as a Public Interest Litigation. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :'It Is, therefore humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed. The respondent No. 1 -- State of Rajasthan may kindly be directed to place the reasons for relaxing the provisions of the Rules of 1986 while Issuing the order dated 6-3-98 (Annexure 1) in favour of M/s. R. K. Marbles (P.) Limited. In the event, this Hon'ble Court feels that the reasons for relaxation arc not Just and valid, the order dated 6-3-98 (Annexure 1) and all actions as a...
Tag this Judgment!Kishan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-22-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj115; 2002(1)WLN485
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J.1. These petitions involve identical questions of law and facts in each case. There is no dispute over facts at all. With the consent of the parties, the cases were heardtogether and are being decided together by this common order, it governs all the cases.2. The surface transport in India is undertaken either by railway or by road. On road the transport is usually by motor vehicle, passenger transport is invariably by motor vehicles. The passenger transport was governed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. With development of transport facilities and voluminous increases in the passenger transport restructuring of the law was found necessary and hence Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was passed by the Parliament making a comprehensive legislation governing the surface transportinlndia, Since 1988, therefore, all the questions pertaining to grant of permits, registration etc. of vehicles plying for passenger transport within India are governed by the provisions of Motor Vehi...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Lodha Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC337; 2001(1)WLN321
ORDERMathur, J.1. The first writ petition being D.B. Civil writ petition No. 6073/93 was filed by petitioner Mahendra Lodha in the year 1993 as a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner has highlighed chaotic traffic conditions and vehicular pollution in the city of Jodhpur. The writ petition is based on the information collected from the Research made by one Shri Avdesh Kumar under the guidance of Professor M.B. Pathak. According to the petitioner, 1,14,076 vehicles were registered with Regional Transport Officer, Jodhpur in the year 1992. It is further averred that there is an increase of 14 to 15 thousand vehicles per year. The gases which are emitted by the vehicles are Carbon Monoxide-64%, Hydrocarbons 22%, Oxides of Nitrogen-12% besides Sulphur dioxide, lead compounds and suspended particulate matter, smoke etc. It is further averred that 72.5% of the Cars registered with RTO, Jodhpur emit 3% Carbon Monoxide; 63% of the three wheelers emit more than 4.5% Carbon Monoxide, 25% o...
Tag this Judgment!Dev Kishan Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC659
ORDERShethna, J. (1). By way of this wtit petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of suspension dated 15.5.98 (Annex. P/3) and order dated 25.8.1998 (Annex. P/4) ordering re-enquiry against the petitioner.(2). Earlier writ petition No. 1821/98 filed by the petitioner was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this fresh petition.(3). On 24.11.1993 my learned brother Hon'ble R.R. Yadav, J. while issuing notice stayed the impugned order of suspension and order of re-enquiry. (4). Though the respondents were duly served, no reply has been filed in the matter so far. By virtue of interim order passed by this Court on 24.11.1998, the peiitioner was reinstated in the office of Sarpanch and his term has also over. Thus, the order of suspension looses all its significance. (5). The only question remains regarding re-enquiry on the basis of Section 63(3)of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act'...
Tag this Judgment!Avinash Mathur Vs. State and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC470; 2001(1)WLN600
ORDERYadav, J.(1). The petitioner, by filing the present petition, questions the legality and validity of Annexure-8 to the writ petition, whereby, some of annual adverse remarks, relating to the year 1995-96, have been expunged, on the representation of the petitioner, made to the Slate Government, but some of the adverse remarks on output of work, general assessment, overall rating and about his performance not satisfactory, are maintained.(2). It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Virendra Lodha, that the petitioner has unblemished record of service and no adyerse remarks have ever been communicated to him. It is submitted by him that the same reporting officer, who has made adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for the year 1995-96, had also given adverse remarks to him, in the year 1994-95, against which, the petitioner had made a representation to Slate Government, and on his representation, the adverse remarks, given by the r...
Tag this Judgment!Brothers Pharma (Pvt.) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporati ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Nov-21-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj266; 2001(1)WLC13
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 questioning the legality and validity of the impugned notice dated 19-2-2000 (Annexure-19 and Annexure-20) issued under S, 30 of the State Financial Corporations Act. 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1951'). Annexure-19 relates to petitioner No. 1 whereas Annexure-20 relates to petitioner No. 2, In order to avoid multifariousness. learned counsel for the petitioners presses the writ petition only for petitioner No. 1 and withdraw the petition of petitioner No. 2 with liberty to file a fresh one,2: Therefore, now by way of filing the present writ petition the petitioner No. 1 alone is questioning the legality and validity of notice Annexure-19 issued under S 30 of the Act of 1951 with a prayer for a direction to the Corporation to provide statement of accounts to-the petitioner No. 1 and also prayed for to reconcile the accounts in accordance with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of I...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »