Court : Patna
syed md. mahfooz alam, j.1. this civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.01.2005 passed by shri subhash chandra chaurasia, sub-ordinate judge-vii, patna in eviction suit no. 27 of 1995 whereby the learned sub-ordinate judge-vii, patna has been pleased to pass decree in favour of plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendants-petitioners from the suit house.2. the brief fact is that the plaintiff-opposite party smt. premlata sinha filed title suit no. 27 of 1995 for a decree of eviction against petitioners-defendants from the suit premises described in schedule-1 of the plaint. the sole ground on which the eviction suit was preferred was personal necessity of the plaintiff.3. the case of the plaintiff, as per the plaint, is that she is the owner and landlord of the suit house. the husband of the plaintiff was in government service, who retired in the year 1992, after retirement of her husband the suit house was required for the residence of the plaintiff as plaintiff had no other house within patna municipal corporation. her husband also did not possess any exclusive house except 1/5th share in his small ancestral house situated at 78 s.k. nagar, patna which was not sufficient for accommodation of the plaintiff's family. further case of the plaintiff was that in december, 1984 the suit premises was let out to the defendants on monthly rent at rs. 4000/- for a fixed period, which has already expired. the defendant no. 1 is running a doctor .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
ravi s. dhavan, c.j. 1. the court is dealing with the subject of untouchability. this is mentioned in article 17 of the constitution which says: '17. abolition of untouchability.--'untouchability' is abolished and its practice in any form is forebidden. the enforcement of any disability rising out of 'untouchability' shall be an offence punishable in accordance with law.'2. no one can deny that when the constitution of india was being framed, half a century of dedication by mahatma gandhi supported by an equally dedicated parliamentarian and social reformer, dr. b.r. ambedkar, made the contribution of inserting this article. it is under chapter 3. it is part of fundamental rights. this article does not guarantee any right, but it takes away, by a constitutional mandate, the horrible scourge which defiles our republic by treating one class of citizens as 'untouchables'. constitution or no constitution this horrible practice of untouchability continues in the nation. no deterrent, whether law or the mandate of the constitution, has been able to eradicate this shameless practice. fifty-four years after the republic the stories of that great hindi writer premchand can be read even today as an indictment on any government which has not been able to eradicate untouchability, which the constitution of india desired to be wiped out by one stroke of the pen. two stories of premchand particularly fit in with this theme, of how society is divided between people who claim to have a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
m.y. eqbal, j.1. these petitioners namely, dr. jagannath mishra, lalu prasad @ lalu prasad yadav, ravindra kumar rana and vidya sagar nishad have moved this court for grant of bail in connection with case no. r.c. 64a/96 (special case no. 65 of 1996) registered under sections 120b, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477, 201 and 511 of the indian penal code and section 13(2) read with sections 13(1) (d) & (c) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988.2. i have heard mr. r.k. jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in cr. misc. no. 23233 of 1998, mr. rajendra singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in cr. misc no. 23363 of 1998, learned senior counsel, mr. shakeel ahmad khan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner in cr. misc. no. 23252 of 1998, mr. janardan rai, learned counsel for the petitioner in cr. misc. no. 23595 of 1998 and mr. rakesh kumar, learned p.p. for the c.b.i.3. since all these petitioners have been made accused in connection with the aforesaid case registered on the basis of one f.i.r., these petitions are being disposed of by this common order after considering their respective cases on merit.4. this case relates to fodder scam in the animal husbandry department, government of bihar. the brief history of the initiation of criminal cases, as has been narrated by the special judge, c.b.i., patna, in his order dated 30.10.1998, is that sometime in the year 1996 the officials of the state of bihar on the orders of one .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
v.n. sinha, j.1. m.j.c.no. 820 of 2006, 1874 of 2006, 1370 of 2006, 511 of 2006, 1760 of 2006 and 2667 of 2006 have been filed asserting failure on the part of the patna/gaya municipal corporation and manager municipality that the corporation/municipality has failed to comply the general directions of this court to pay the retiral dues of the petitioners and the authorities of the corporation/municipality are liable to be proceeded against for failure to comply the orders of this court.2. the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed for a direction to the authorities of the gaya municipal corporation and munger/jamalpur municipality to pay the admitted retiral dues to the petitioners who superannuated while serving the corporation/municipalities to the best of their ability.3. during pendency of the writ petitions, petitioner of c.w.j.c.nos. 15070 of 2004, 1595 of 2005 and 2369 of 2005 died leaving behind their heirs indicated in interlocutory application nos. 3499 of 2006, 2410 of 2007 and 2404 of 2007.4. let the names of the petitioners of the said writ petitions be expunged and in their place the heirs/legal representatives indicated in paragraph no. 2 of interlocutory application nos. 3499 of 2006, 2410 of 2007 and 2404 of 2007 be substituted and the three interlocutory applications bearing no. 3499 of 2006, 2410 of 2007 and 2404 of 2007 are, accordingly, disposed of.5. learned counsel for the corporation/municipalities have not disputed the entitlement of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
s.b. sinha, j.1. both these writ applications involving common question of law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. the petitioners are landholders.ceiling proceeding under the bihar land reforms (fixation of ceiling area and acquisitioa of surplus land) act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said act) were initiated against them.3. the fact of the matter involved in both the writ applications may however, be noticed separately.4. c.w.j.c. no. 8308 of 1991:the petitioners objection under section 10(3) of the said act as also an appeal preferred there from having been dismissed, they filed a revision application before the member board of revenue. the said revision application was admitted on 6-3-1991 and order of status quo was passed. the hearing of the said revision application was concluded before shri abhik ghosh, additional member, board of revenue and the order was reserved but as the learned additional member board of revenue was transferred, no order was passed therein.5. the revision application was, thereafter placed before shri pancham lal who directed re-hearing of the matter on 26-8-1991. on the aforementioned date shri vijay kumar bhagat, advocate, who was appearing on behalf of the petitioners was not in a position to appear and as such an application for time was filed and the same was allowed; but the respondent no. 2 directed that the order of status quo passed on 6-3-1990 shall stand vacated.6. a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
s.k. katriar, j.1. the defendants first set are the appellants against a judgment of reversal. this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9.6.1998, passed by the learned 5th additional district judge, siwan, in title appeal no. 13 of 1992, jagdish tiwari v. lalmuni devi and ors., whereby he has allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and the defendants second set, and set aside the judgment and decree dated 9.4.1992, passed by the learned 2nd munsif, siwan, in title suit no. 101 of 1984, jagdish tiwari v. rajpati chaudhary and ors. the learned trial court had dismissed the suit which has been set aside by the impugned judgment and decreed the suit. we shall go by the description of the parties occurring in the plaint.2. it arises out of a suit for declaration of title of the plaintiff and defendant 2nd set (respondent herein), and for confirmation of their possession over the suit land bearing plot no. 104. as per the plaint, ram ugrah tiwari had four sons, namely, sital tiwari, ramautar tiwari, muneshwar tiwari and deodut tiwari. sital tiwari died leaving behind his two sons, samsundar tiwari and nakched tiwari. shyam sundar also died issueless living jointly with his full brother nakched tiwari who died leaving behind his sons who are plaintiffs and defendant no. 8. the property belonging to late shyamsundar tiwari is coming in possession of the plaintiff and defendant no. 6 (ramautar tiwari), full brother of sital tiwari who died leaving behind .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
ramesh kumar datta, j.1. the present writ application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 20.2.2004 passed by a division bench of the central administrative tribunal, patna bench, patna in o.a. no. 286 of 2001, by which the tribunal has allowed the said case and quashed the order dated 11/13.4.2000 passed by petitioner no. 2, director, central bureau of investigation and also quashed the order no. 95 of 2000 dated 4.5.2000 issued by the superintendent of police, central bureau of investigation (petitioner no. 3) terminating the service of respondent no. 1, sri prakash kumar gajre and the tribunal further directed that the applicant (respondent no. 1) would be put back in duty with all consequential benefits.2. respondent no. 1 filed the aforesaid original application challenging his termination order from the post of public prosecutor by order dated 11/13.4.2000 issued by the director, c.b.i, and office order no. 95/2000 dated 4.5.2000 issued by the superintendent of police, c.b.i., patna. the case of the applicant (respondent no. 1) is that he was appointed as public prosecutor on the recommendation of the u.p.s.c. on 30.6.1992. he joined his post on 2.11.1992 at calcutta and subsequently was transferred to patna in july, 1996. however, no confirmation order was received by him nor an order regarding extension of his probation was received by him. in 1997 the then deputy legal advisor on account of grudge and ulterior motive started recording adverse remark .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
s.n. jha, j.1. this civil revision has been referred to division bench for decision on the point as to whether an order dismissing an appeal on account of limitation as being time-barred and not on merits is appealable. the significance of the point is that revision under section 115 of the code of civil procedure is maintainable only when appeal does not lie against the order. as the point involves a pure question of law, it is not necessary to set out the facts of the case. it may only be stated that the petitioners, who were plaintiffs in the court below, instituted title suit no. 3 of 1979 for declaration about a deed of gift as being null and void. the plaint was rejected in view of the provisions of section 4(b) of the bihar consolidation of holdings and prevention of fragmentation act, 1956, which bars suit after publication of notification regarding preparation of consolidation scheme under section 3(1) of the act. the petitioners challenged the order by way of revision, c.r. no. 605 of 1980, in this court. by judgment dated 7.12.81 reported in air 1982 patna 75 this court held that the order of rejection of the plaint amounted to decree and was, therefore, appealable. after dismissal of the civil revision as being not maintainable, the petitioners filed appeal, title appeal no. 69 of 1982, before the district judge, bhagalpur, on 11.10.82 along with an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the limitation act. by the impugned order dated 27.4.84, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
navniti prasad singh, j.1. heard the parties.2. the petitioner jay mangal singh was at the relevant time secretary of the ajanta tel utpadak sahyog samiti limited, duly registered under the bihar co-operative societies act, 1935. the co-operative had taken a loan from central co-operative bank limited, aurangabad. having taken loan, it defaulted in repayment, the consequences, thereof, was that for recovery of outstanding dues a certificate proceeding was initiated against the said co-operative. while doing so, petitioner was made a party to the certificate proceeding and shown as a certificate debtor. this was done specifically mentioning that the petitioner was the secretary of the said co-operative when the loan was granted.3. the co-operative challenged the proceedings before this court in the earlier writ petition, which was dismissed. petitioner has now challenged the proceedings as against him and has submitted that being a secretary and merely an office bearer of the co-operative he cannot be made personally liable for the dues incurred by the cooperative. the loan was neither sanctioned to the petitioner nor taken by the petitioner. the petitioner had neither underwritten the loan nor guaranteed its repayment. he was merely secretary of the cooperative, which cannot visit him with personal liability.4. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the central co-operative bank submits that loan having been taken by the cooperative under the secretaryship of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
v.n. sinha, j.1. heard sri b.k. kanth sr. advocate for the petitioner and j.c. to g.p-ii for the state of bihar.2. the petitioner is aggrieved by the notification dated 21.12.2005, annexure-1, whereunder he has been placed under suspension for the misconduct committed in the widening/strengthening of the ara sasaram road as has been found by the cabinet (vigilance) department in its report dated 20.4.2005, annexure-2 which was submitted to the road construction department (r.c.d.) under letter no. 3863 dated 25.10.2005, annexure- 14. the challenge is made on the ground that the suspension order is not only arbitrary and violative of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of india but also contrary to the provisions contained in the bihar government civil service classification (control and appeal) rules, 2005. it is submitted that earlier proceeding for the same misconduct was initiated against the petitioner under rule 56 of the civil services classification (control and appeal) rules, 1930 vide resolution of the state government bearing memo no. 3499 dated 8.5.2003, annexure 4, whereundar the chargesheet alleging the same misconduct annexure-5 was served on the petitioner along with memo of evidence in support of those charges calling upon him to file show cause reply before the enquiry officer. in response to the said direction, the petitioner filed his show cause reply dated 6.4.2004, annexure 6 denying the charges on the basis of the evidence referred to in the .....
Tag this Judgment!