Court : Patna
s.n. pathak, j.1. this appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court dated 22nd february, 1986 and 14th march, 1986 respectively. before i refer to the point of law on the basis of which this appeal was admitted, it would be worthwhile to refer to the relevant facts.2. the facts, in a nut-shell, are that the plaintiffs of the title suit no. 119 of 1968 are appellants here. they had filed the suit for removal of encroachment from plot no. 821, plot nos. 822 and 823 belonged to the defendants and they had allegedly encroached upon plot no. 821. the trial court by its judgment dated 16th february 1979, decreed the suit holding that there was encroachment by the defendant-respondents over the land of appellants over plot no. 821 on the basis of survey knowing pleader commissioner's report. however, the appellate court, referring to the report of the pleader commissioner, held that since this commissioner was not a survey knowing advocate, the report was not reliable. it is the case of the appellants before this court that the first appellate court committed an error of record by referring to the survey knowing commissioner's report relying on which the trial court had decreed the suit and based his finding on the report of a pleader commissioner who was just deputed to report on the physical features of the land in dispute.3. i find that by order dated 10th april, 1987, this court, after admitting the appeal, formulated the question of law to be .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
s.n. jha, j.1. this writ petition was initially filed on behalf of 10 petitioners. the names of 9 of them were subsequently deleted presumably in view of the stamp report relating to payment of separate court fees by each of them.2. the dispute in the case relates to appointment of assistants on the basis of third graduate-level competitive examination pursuant to advertisement no. 1/90. the petitioner seeks direction to extend the cut-off date for filling the vacancies. the cut-off date has been fixed by the state government as 31.12.1993 meaning thereby, that vacancies existing up to 31.12.93, alone had to be filled on the basis of the said competitive examination. the grievance of the petitioner is that though the vacancies were advertised in 1990 itself, the written examination was held only in 1995 and the result thereof published on 16.12.96, the modified result was, in fact, published on 14.1.97; in such a situation treating 31.12.93 as the cut-off date should beheld to be arbitrary. the court should direct the government to treat at least, the date of publication of the result, i.e., 14.1.97, or 16.12.96 as the cut-off date.3. at the outset, w may be mentioned that a writ petition, cwjc no. 1376 of 1997 by hridayal kumar and ors., seeking similar direction was dismissed by this court on 3.12.98. the court held that in writ jurisdiction, the high court cannot fix any cut-off date which is to be done by the competent authority. the court also observed that in the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
indu prabha singh, j.1. this application in revision filed under sections 397 and 401 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short 'the code') is directed against the order dated 8.12.1998 passed in case no. 59m/85 by shri r.p.s. singh, j.m. 1st class, lakhisarai as also for quashing the entire proceeding of case no. 59m/85.criminal misc. no. 6579 of 1992 :so far as criminal misc. no. 6579/92 filed under section 482 of the code is concerned, it is directed against the order dated 23.3.1992 passed in cr. rev. no. 144 of 1991 by sri ram prabodh singh, ii additional sessions judge, munger by which he confirmed the order and judgment dated 3.4.1991 passed by shri ravindra patwari, j.m. 1st class, munger under section 125 of the code. both these cases were heard analogous and this judgment will govern both of them.2. the petitioner in criminal revision no. 28 of 1999 is husband and opposite party no. 2 has claimed to be his first wife. it appears that opposite party no. 2 had filed complaint case no. 159 (c) of 1982 against the petitioner for his prosecution under section 494 of the indian penal code claiming therein that she was the first wife of the petitioner. she has filed another case no. 58m/85 against the petitioner under section 125 of the code for her maintenance claiming therein also that she is wife of the petitioner. so far as complaint case no. 159(c)/82 is concerned, the petitioner was acquitted by shri p.k. dubey, magistrate 1st class by judgment dated 8.5. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1.this petition under article 226 of the constitution of india has been preferred by the above mentioned petitioner for quashing the detention order dated 22-3-2000 passed under section 3(i), (ii) and (iii) of the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 (hereinafter shall be stated as cofeposa) by the respondent no. 2 state of bihar, through deputy secretary, home (special) department as contained in annexure-1 to this writ application and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus to release the detenu md. abulias ahmad alias chander singh, husband of the petitioner from his illegal detention in central jail at bhagalpur.2. the petitioner is the wife of the detenu sk. abulias ahmad alias chander singh resident of ram krishna pali champashree more, p.o. pradhan nagar, silliguri, district darjeeling who has been confined in the central jail, bhagalpur pursuant to the order of detention passed by respondent no. 2 dated 22-3-2000 under the .cofeposa. the said detention order was served on the detenu on 12-4-2000 while the detenu was in siliguri special jail in connection with another case involving kidnapping of a person. the grounds of detention together with list of documents were served on the detenu. on 16-5-2000 the detenu was taken- to bhagalpur central jail where he was informed that he was to be produced before the advisory board at patna high court which was on 17-5-2000. accordingly, he was produced before .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
s.n. jha, j.1. the petitioner seeks quashing of the order of the district magistrate-cum-chairman, district rural development agency (drda), aurangabad contained in his memo no. 1036 dated 11.7.98 dismissing him from service in a departmental proceedings. the petitioner also seeks consequential reliefs as a result of quashing of the order of dismissal.2. the short facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee under drda, aurangabad as an assistant. while working on the post of assistant-cum-accountant incharge, he was placed under suspension by the district magistrate-cum-chairman, drda vide his letter no. 1921 dated 29.10.97 on certain charges with respect to which a departmental proceedings was also initiated against him. the inquiry was held by the district development officer, aurangabad. the petitioner filed his show cause/written statement to the memo of charges and thereafter participated in the inquiry. on 13.4.98 the inquiry officer submitted his findings. on 19.5.98 vide memo no. 646 the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. along with the show cause notice, copy of the said inquiry report dated 13.4.98 was enclosed. the petitioner filed second show cause on 3.6.98. on 11.7.98, he was dismissed from service by the impugned order. copy of the order is annexure-8 to the writ petition.3. questioning the validity of the impugned order, dr. sadanand jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended firstly .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. by this writ petition, petitioner, who is a member of bihar superior judicial service, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 17-3-2000 communicated by the registrar-general of this court vide memo no. 6130 (annexure-1) while he was posted as district and sessions judge, nawada informing him that pursuant to the judgment and orders of the supreme court dated 24-8-1993 passed in review petition no. 249 of 1992 (writ petition no. 1022 of 1989-all india judges' association and ors. v. the union of india and ors. the court having assessed and evaluated his services, have been pleased not to allow him the benefit of enhancement of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years, and that in view of the aforesaid decision of this court, he was ceased to be the member of the judicial service of the state on completion of the age of 58 years.2. in short, the case of the petitioner is that he was born on 15-9-1942 and joined the bihar judicial service on 4-4-1974 as munsif. he was prompted as additional sub-judge on 17-8-1983. he was prompted as sub-judge with effect from 23-8-1984 vide high court's notification no. 130-a dated 18-4-1985 and was posted as chief judicial magistrate, the high court on consideration of the service record prompted him in senior selection grade vide notification no. 154-a dated 5-4-1989 with effect from 22-9-1986 and later on, the post of additional district and sessions judge vide notification no. 3040 dated 16-4-1987 on which he was confirmed vide .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
aftab alam, j.1. the petitioner held a retail licence under the bihar trade articles (licences unification order), 1984 and a dealership under the public distribution system. he was made an accused in a criminal case in which allegations were that he committed irregularities in distribution of the foodgrains allotted to him. the trial ended in his acquittal. nevertheless, the licensing authority cancelled his licence issued under the unification order. in appeal, the order passed by the licensing authority was affirmed.2. mr. griyaghey, learned counsel for the petitioner-submitted that under clause 11(1) of the unification order, a licence could be cancelled only in case of conviction in a criminal case and therefore, the order passed by the licensing authority and the appellate authority, cancelling his licence though he was acquitted in the criminal trial were illegal and unsustainable in law.3. the submission made by mr. griyaghey is well founded so far as retail licence of the petitioner is concerned. the licence could not be cancelled in view of the fact that the trial of the petitioner had ended in his acquittal. the impugned orders, therefore, insofar as they relate to cancelling the retail licence granted to the petitioner under the unification order are set aside.4. this is, however, not the end of, the matter. the grant of a retail licence under the unification order is one thing and the grant of dealership underthe public distribution system is something quite .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. in each of these writ petitions comprising this batch complaint is made that names of persons having voting right have been left out, in small of large numbers, from the voters list prepared for the respective gram panchayats for the coming panchayat elections. apart from the cases in this batch there are many more cases on the list before this court making the same grievance.2. before proceeding further, if may be stated that elections for the local bodies (gram panchayats and zila parishads) are going to be held in this state after a gap of 22 years. it may also be noted that the necessary will and the drive which made the coming elections possible came from the order passed by this court in nand kishore singh v. union of india, (2000) 4 pat 1 ljr 819. needless to say, therefore, it is of the utmost concern of this court that the elections are held on schedule, as fixed by the electroral authorities, and that nothing be allowed to happen that might cause obstruc tion or delay in the holding of the elections. at the same time this court is equally concerned that the elections should be meaningful and at the conclusion of the elections process all the efforts and expenses may not appear to have been futile and a waste.3. it is also to be stated here that with the announcement of elections cases in large numbers started coming to this court making grievances of different kinds in connection with the coming elections. these cases can be broadly classified in three categories .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
m.l. visa, j.1. respondent no. 1 has filed an application under section 87 of the representation of the people act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') read with order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure (in short, cpc) challenging the maintainability of the election petition and praying for its dismissal.2. the objection raised by respondent no. 1 is that the election petitioner has challenged the election of respondent no. 1 on the sole ground of illegalities alleged to have been committed by the counting authorities and the petitioner has levelled allegations against the district election officer, returning officer and assistant returning officer that they committed illegalities inthe counting of votes but these officials have not been made* parties by the election petitioner in his petition and all the allegations levelled by the election petitioner in his petition cannot be inquired into in absence of the aforesaid officials and on this ground the election petition is liable to be dismissed.3. second objection raised by respondent no. 1 as to the maintainability of this election petition is that the election petition does not disclose any cause of action because it does not contain material facts as required under section 83 of the act and no roving inquiry can be allowed on the basis of vexatious and baseless claim as made in the present election petition and on this account also the election petition is liable to be dismissed.4. the election petitioner .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
radha mohan prasad, j. 1. as in both these writ petitions the question involved is common, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. in the first writ petition (c.w.j.c. no. 13522 of 2000) the prayer is to quash the order, dated august 17, 2000 contained in annexure 9 passed by the managing director and group executive (national banking), state bank of india, mumbai (respondent no. 3), whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground after the death of his father late gopal nandan prasad sinha in harness on august 30, 1996 has been rejected and the second writ petition (c.w.j.c. no. 918 of 2001) is directed against the order as contained in ref: ptc/ssw/4209/ 2000-01/hkv, dated december 16, 2000 (annexure 4), issued by the divisional manager, canara bank, patna, informing the petitioner that the competent authority after examining his case has declined to give appointment in the bank on compassionate ground as no indigent circumstances necessitating employment exists in his case and consequently the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent-authorities to appoint him on compassionate ground after the death of his father late siboo sharma in harness on december 11, 1999. by way of amendment ia. no. 783 of 2001 has also been filed in the second case challenging the validity of the order, dated december 14, 2000, contained in annexure 5 issued by the assistant general manager, canara bank, bangalore, to the assistant general .....
Tag this Judgment!