Rajasthan Court September 2000 Judgments
Prahlad Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-06-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4182; 2001(1)WLN358
AR. Lakshmanan, C.J. 1. Petitioner is a practising lawyer of Pidawa, District Jhalawar. He is represented through Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate. The writ petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the order dated 24-4-2000 (An-nexure-1), passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhalawar, and to declare the said order as illegal and arbitrary.2. Vide the order dated 24-4-2000, the C.J.M. has ordered to shift the jurisdiction of Police Station, Sunel from the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.- Divn.)-cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pidawa to the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.)-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhawani Mandi, exercising his powers vested by virtue of Sections 14(1) and 15(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.').3. The above order has been challenged on two grounds. First that no reasons, whatsoever, have been given by the C..T.M. for shifting the jurisdiction of the Police Station concerned. Secondly, that the villagers of the vill...
Tag this Judgment!Dipendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(3)WLC754
ORDERLakshmanan, CJ. (1). Heard Mr. Rajendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner appellant and Mr. P.C. Shah learned counsel for the respondents. (2). This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.5.1997, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the writ petition, filed by the appellant, holding that the petitioner appellant is not entitled to get the employment under the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (for short 'the Rules of 1975'). (3). The appellant is the brother of the deceased Government servant-Gajender Singh, who died in the year 1979 in an accident, while in service. According to the appellant, he is entitled to get the employment under the Rules of 1975 as having been nominated by the mother of the deceased under the Rules. Our attention was drawn to the definition of the word 'family' which reads thus: 'Family' - means the family of the deceased Government Servant and shall include wif...
Tag this Judgment!Udit Gopal Beri and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj147; 2001(4)WLC458
ORDERR.R. Yadav, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking relief to direct respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to make allotment in view of Rule 1 (A) of the Government Order No. P-2 (8) Revenue/Land Conversion dated 18-2-94 and till then petitioners should not be dispossessed from the land in dispute. 2. Mr. Bharat Vyas learned counsel appearing on behalf of Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the instant writ petition is barred by principle of res judicata. Mr. Vyas invited my attention to the judgment given by learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2090/87 decided on 29th August, 1996 Annexure R-4 to the reply filed by respondent No. 2 wherein the plea of conversion and regularisation of the land in dispute was raised before the learned single Judge but it was negatived by speaking order. It is submitted that aggrieved against the judgment passed...
Tag this Judgment!State of Rajasthan Vs. Moti and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2000CriLJ4817; 2001(1)WLC230; 2001(4)WLN533
Hon'ble Gupta, J.(1). The above mentioned appeals and the death reference arise out of the judgment dated 18th of November 1997, of the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. By the impugned judgment appellants Moti and Chittar were convicted under Section 302, 307 and 148 I.P.C. and were sentenced to death for the first offence and five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- for the second; in default of payment of fine, six months simple imprisonment. They were not sentenced separately Under Section 148 I.P.C. Remaining five accused appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. 307 read with 149 and 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under the first count and four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under the second count. They were also not separately sentenced Under Section 148 I.P.C.(2). The prosecution case relates to an occurrence which took place in the night intervening 27th a...
Tag this Judgment!Mushtaq Shah Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2001(4)WLC592; 2001(1)WLN262
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.1. The above named accused appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.12.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh Camp, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 107/1994 by which he convicted the accused appellant under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') and sentenced him to undergo ten years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1 lac, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo two years' R.I.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows:On 5.5.1994 at about 7.30 AM, PW4 Bhagwat Singh, SHO, Police Station Nikum, Distt. Chittorgarh received a secret information that Khalasi of Meenaxi Bus, which goes from Sangaria to Arnoda, would carry contraband opium in a gunny bag. That information was reduced in writing by PW4 Bhagwat Singh in Ex.P/8.Thereafter, PW4 Bhagwat Singh alongwith PW5 Balwant Singh, PW6 Prahlad Singh and ot...
Tag this Judgment!Dharam Chand Maloo Vs. Board of Revenue and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC270; 2001(1)WLN355
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the orders Annxs. 4, 5 & 7 passed by the authorised officer Land Conversion and SDM Pratapgarh on 29.9.1994, Revenue Appellate Authority on 25.7.1996 and by Board of Revenue on 25.3.1997 respectively.3. These proceedings concern the conversion and use of land in question for commercial purposes. The authorised officer by his order dated 29.9.1994 imposed the condition that the owner of the land shall not make any construction within 33 ft. from the centre of the road which is the adjoining to the road in question. Aggrieved with the said order, the present petitioner filed a revision before the Revenue Appellate Authority, who rejected the same by his order dated 25th July, 1996 by holding the revision barred by time and also on merit. Drawing attention to Rule 5(4)(b)(ii) of the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Re...
Tag this Judgment!Mool Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-05-2000
Reported in: 2000(1)WLC657; 2001(1)WLN353
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 25.4.1992, by which the services of the petitioner stood terminated because of abolition of the post.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner was appointed temporarily only for a period of three months against a substantive post of Washerman in the hospital vide order dated 28.1.1992 (Annx. 1) and his services have been terminated, vide order dated 25.4.1992, for the reason that the post, on which he was appointed temporarily, stood abolished. Respondents have filed reply more than six years ago stating that the post, on which petitioner was appointed, stood abolished, therefore, he had no right to continue on that post and the respondents had no option but to terminate his services. It has further been stated in the reply that no person junior to petitioner has been retained on the post nor there was any post of Washerman lying vacant, Petitioner has not...
Tag this Judgment!Kaluram Madangopal Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-04-2000
Reported in: 2000(4)WLC55; 2001(1)WLN347
Rajesh Balia, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order levying penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 in a sum equal to 30% of the value of the goods while they were in transit. The penalty has been levied solely on the ground that Form ST 18-A which was accompanying the goods in transit at the time of checking was incomplete in some respects. No other breach of requirement of Sub-section (2) of Section 78 of the Act has been found.2. The validity of the levy of penalty has been challenged inter-alia on the ground that the provisions of Section 78(5) of the Act authorising the levy of penalty equal to 30% of the value of the goods are ultra vires to the Article 14 of the Constitution of India contending that Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 which requires a declaration from the importer in Form ST 18-A/18AA by the carrier of the goods to be produced at the time of inspection while entering the territory of Rajasthan at th...
Tag this Judgment!Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-2000
Reported in: AIR2001Raj25
ORDERV.G. Palshikar, J.1. By this petition the petitioner which runs Vyas Nursing Institute in Jodhpur city has challenged the Circular issued by the Govt. of Rajasthan on 12 -5-2000 on several grounds mentioned in the petition.2. Facts giving rise to the present petition stated briefly are that the petitioner is a Society propagating education in Rajasthan. This establishment is a development Society for Rajasthan. The Institute called Vyas Nursing Institute was established by the petitioner Society to provide instruction to the people of Rajasthan, who desire to take up nursing as a career. This establishment of the school was in pursuance of the policy laid down by the Govt. of Rajasthan to permit establishment of Nursing Training Institutions in private sector in the State of Rajasthan . It had issued certain guidelines on 1-6-1998 which were later on modified on 9-7-1999.3. Annexure 1 to the petition is a copy of the guidelines issued on 1-6-1998 wherein it has been stated that Nu...
Tag this Judgment!Mani Kumar Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Sep-01-2000
Reported in: 2001(1)WLC311; 2001(1)WLN344
B.J. Shethna, J.1. That the appellant/petitioner was serving as Police Constable. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 25.9.1987 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the CCA Rules'). It was alleged against the petitioner that in the night of 30.8.1987, he was making bad jestures to the wife of a constable by sitting on the wall and seeing her husband, he ran away. When he was called by S.H.O., Sadar Bazar, Police Station, Jodhpur, he was found fully drunk. He ran away from the police station and thereafter produced forged medical certificate from M.G. Hospital, Jodhpur for remaining absent from duty without any prior leave from 25.8.1987 to 30.8.1987. After recording the evidence and giving him full opportunity of cross-examining them, the enquiry officer found the charges levelled against him proved. On the basis of the enquiry report, the respondent No. 3 removed him from service by an order dated 30.3.1988. He p...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›