Rajasthan Court August 2011 Judgments
Mustkim Kaji and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondents recognized the examination of Adeep and Adeep Mahir from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh as equivalent to Secondary and Senior Secondary. Petitioner No. 1 passed Adeep Mahir Examination and the Petitioners No. 2 and 3 passed Adeep Examination from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh in the year 2010. The petitioners came to know that the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan has cancelled recognition of Jamia Urdu, Aligarh vide order dated 22.06.2011 and no Eligibility Certificate shall be issued to the candidates, who will pass the examination from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that respondent-Board has already issued certificates to number of candidates who appeared in the said examinations in the year 2009-2010 before passing the order withdrawing recognition of Jamia Urdu, Aligarh. The petitioners could not apply for issuance of certif...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan and Others.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the validity of Clause 8(vi) of the Guidelines / Circular dated 25th June, 2010 (Annexure-4) issued by Education (Group-4), Department, Government of Rajasthan, imposing restriction on the student not to contest election of Students’ Union more than once on the post of Office Bearer. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in last academic session i.e. 2010-2011, the petitioner was student of L.L.B.(Final Year) in Government Law College, Sikar and he contested the election of student union for the post of President and lost, whereas the petitioner, this year, i.e. 2011-2012, has taken admission in M.A.(Previous) in Sri Kalyan Government College, Sikar and he wants to contest the election of student union, but in view of eligibility criteria mentioned in Clause 8(vi) of the Guidelines dated 25.06.2010, he will not be eligible to contest the election, despite the fact that earlier, he ...
Tag this Judgment!Rubia Khanam and ors Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since common question of law is involved in all the writ petitions, therefore, they are being disposed off finally by this common order. 3. The petitioners, in this bunch of writ petitions, have challenged Clauses/Conditions 8(i) and 8(ii) of the Guidelines dated 25.06.2010 issued by the Education(Group-4) Department, Government of Rajasthan, imposing restriction on the college students that a candidate will not be eligible for contesting election of Students' Union, if an Under-Graduate Student has crossed maximum age limit of 22 years and a Post-Graduate Student has crossed maximum age limit of 25 years. 4. For the convenience, brief facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10849/2011 are being referred. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has pleaded that she is pursuing her studies of B.Sc. Part III in Gauri Devi Government College for Women, Alwar. The election of Students' Union will be held on 20.08.2011, the State Government has issu...
Tag this Judgment!Vidhyadhar Meel Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-12-2011
1. Mr. V.K. Sharma, learned counsel appears on behalf of Respondent No. 2. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The application filed by the petitioner for taking on record Amended Cause Title is allowed. Amended Cause Title be placed at proper place of the record. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission of writ petition. 5. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition pleading therein that he appeared in the examination of MCA II Semester, but his result has not been declared so far, therefore, his name will not be included in the voter list and he will be deprived from contesting the Students' Union Election, which is going to take place on 20.08.2011. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2, on instruction of Officer-in-charge, who is present in person in the Court, submits that result of the petitioner has been declared and his name has been included in the voter list, therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous. 7. Learned counse...
Tag this Judgment!Yashpal Choudhary(Obc) Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-11-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he secured 329 marks in the Written Examination of Pre BSTC(Sanskrit), 2011, but he has not been called for counselling, whereas a less meritorious candidate of the same category namely Rakesh Kumar Bobasya having Roll NO. 791511, who secured 316 marks(55.54%) has been called for counselling and he has been allotted college/institution i.e. S.N. College of Education, Badgaon Road, Dholpur. 3. The petitioner has pleaded that he belongs to OBC category. He passed Praveshika Examination in the year 2009 and Varishtha Upadhayaya Examination in the year 2011 from the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. He has annexed his Caste Certificate as well as his Qualification Certificates with the writ petition. The petitioner applied for Pre BSTC(Sanskrit) Course, 2011. The petitioner appeared in the written examination of Pre BSTC(Sanskrit), 2011 and secured 329 ma...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Lal Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalsot, Distt. Dausa and or ...
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. At the request of the parties, arguments were heard and the writ petition is being disposed off finally. 2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition to issue necessary direction to respondent No.1- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Lalsot to decide his application for contempt, which is pending for last 13 years, at an early date. 3. From the pleadings of parties, it appears that petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent Nos.2 to 5 in respect of disputed land, which was decreed on 30.11.1991 and thereafter appeal filed by respondent Nos.2 to 5 was also dismissed by the Revenue Appellate Authority on 19.12.1994. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 again preferred Second Appeal No.30/1995 before the Revenue Board, but the same was also dismissed. Since order was not complied with by the respondents, therefore, petitioner filed a contempt petition before the respondent No.1 on 05.09.1998, wherein notice was issued to respondents, but for one reason or other, case is being adjou...
Tag this Judgment!Sanju Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Convict-petitioner Sanju Singh has preferred this parole writ petition for grant of first parole of 20 days under the provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958'). 3. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner has already completed 1/4th of his sentence of imprisonment and his conduct during jail custody is satisfactory, but only on the basis of adverse report of the concerned Superintendent of Police, the District Parole Advisory Committee has rejected his application, therefore, he has preferred this writ petition challenging the order of District Parole Advisory Committee and to issue necessary direction to release the petitioner on first parole of 20 days. 4. A notice to show cause was given and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their reply, wherein it has been admitted that petitioner has completed 1/4th of his sentence and his conduct in jail ...
Tag this Judgment!indraj Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. At the request of parties, arguments were heard and the writ petition is being disposed off finally. 2. Convict-petitioner Indraj has preferred this parole writ petition for grant of first parole of 20 days under the provisions of Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958'). 3. A notice to show cause was given to respondents and in response thereto, they have filed reply to writ petition. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 13.06.2011 passed by the District Parole Advisory Committee, whereby application of petitioner was rejected, and other documents placed on record by the parties. 5. There is no dispute that petitioner has already completed 1/4th of his sentence and his conduct in jail is satisfactory. This fact is proved from the nominal roll of petitioner, annexed by respondents as Annexure-R/1 with their reply. Application of petitioner was rejected only on the gr...
Tag this Judgment!Azad Body Builders Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. The petitioners by way of present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seek to challenge the order dated 21.1.2998 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)- Respondent No.4 (in Appeal No. E/2641/2008 and E/S2645/2008), whereby the Respondent No.4 (CESTAT) had directed the petitioner No.1 to make pre-deposit of 10 lacs on or before 21.2.2009 and had dismissed the stay application as well as the appeal preferred by the petitioner No.1. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the Petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, engaged in the business of building body chassis supplied by the chassis manufacturers and the parties other than the chassis manufacturers and that the Petitioner No.2 is the share holder and Director of the Petitioner No.1 Company. The Respondent No.2 Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, had issued a show cause notice dated 1.2.2007 to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandan at Changil Vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Aug-10-2011
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Convict-petitioner has preferred this parole writ petition for grant of second parole of 30 days. 3. A notice to show cause was given and in response thereto, the respondents have filed their reply contending that conduct of petitioner during jail custody was not satisfactory and he was awarded jail punishment also. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 5. As per the provisions of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958'), it is a pre-condition that before filing an application or releasing the convict-petitioner on parole, his conduct in jail custody should be satisfactory. 6. In the present case, there is report of Jail Superintendent that conduct of petitioner is not satisfactory. In addition to it, it is also reported that petitioner was awarded jail punishment. Even otherwise, as per Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, convict-petitioner cannot claim paro...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »