Rajasthan Court May 2005 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.
Rama Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2911; 2005(4)WLC504
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner - a visually handicapped person, praying therein that the impugned order dated 31.12.1997 (Annexure-P/6) may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to take him back on duty with all consequential benefits.2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner is a visually handicapped person, i.e., completely blind, but he is not blind by birth, but he became blind during the course of employment in October November, 1997. the case of the petitioner falls within the definition of Handicapped Person, as per the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities etc.) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1995'). A Certificate to this effect dated 12.11.1997 (Annex.P/1) has also been issued by the Senior Specialist (Eyes) under the Rajasthan Employment of the Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1976').3. The petitioner joined the servi...
Sita Ram Kachhawaha Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: May-02-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(4)Raj2965
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Brief facts of the case are that according to petitioner, the licence for running a Liquor shop was granted to the petitioner after careful examination of the location of the shop in dispute. According to petitioner earlier also liquor shop was running in this very shop. Now the District Collector on a complaint directed the Excise Officer, Jodhpur to re-consider the entire matter, but according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Excise Officer vide order dated 1.4.2005 asked the petitioner to give alternate location for the liquor shop in zone No. 4. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Excise Officer dated 1.4.2005 (Annex.5). According to petitioner, the objection raised against the running of the liquor shop in the shop in dispute has been raised by some miscreants to blackmail the petitioner and the District Excise Officer without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›