Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1960All304
ORDERS.S. Dhavan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impugning the legality of an order passed by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Varanasi, dated 10-11-1955, reducing the petitioner in rank for a period of two years, and also of an order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Varanasi dated 26-6-1956 dismissing the petitioners' appeal against the aforesaid order of reduction, and of the order of the Inspector General of Police, Uttar Pradesh dated 20-3-1957, rejecting the petitioners' revision petition.2. The facts, as stated in the petitioners' affidavit are these : He was enlisted in the U. P. Police force in 1931 and claims to have a good record of meritorious service (this claim is not denied by the State). On 15-8-3955, the petitioner was posted as Station Officer-in-charge of the Police Station at Moghalsarai in the district of Varanasi. Just before that time a firing had taken place in the State of Bihar, as a result of whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3127; 2005(3)ESC1742
B.S. Chauhan, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.04.2005(Annex.8) passed by the respondent No. 3 by which the names of the petitioners as well as their two sons; and one daughter have been deleted from the provisional voter list: prepared for the purpose of forthcoming Panchayat Raj elections. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners, claim to be resident of village Bhanjanpur, Gram: Panchayat Payagpur Ramgarhwa, Block Manda, Tehsil Meja, District Allahabad. There, they have a, house, immovable properties and their family members reside therein. Earlier names of the petitioners as well as their children existed in the voter list and they had exercised the right to vote in the last elections for the Parliaments well as the State Assembly. Their names appeared in the voter list prepared for Gram Panchayat election also. The elector roll was published for the purposes of, holding the elections of Gram Panchayat on 01...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC386; (1998)1UPLBEC454
D.K. Seth, J.1. By an order dated 24th October, 1997, the petitioner has been suspended on the alleged ground that the inquiry is contemplated against him. This order has, been assailed by Sri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that by reason of Regulation 496 of U. P. Police Regulations, no order of suspension can be issued unless departmental inquiry or judicial inquiry has started. According to him, there is nothing in the regulation to empower the competent authority to issue an order of suspension only in contemplation of the enquiry. Therefore, the order of suspension is void and without jurisdiction. His second contention is that even in the impugned order of suspension, it was mentioned that copies were being sent to one Sri Narain Singh, Circle Officer, for sending the enquiry report within seven days, upon receipt of the said copy of the order of suspension. Therefore, according to Sri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the petitioner, preliminary inquiry ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1968]22STC26(All)
Jagdish Sahai, J.1. The Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, Meerut [hereinafter referred to as the Judge (Revisions)] has submitted a statement of the case and the following questions of law under Section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the opinion of this Court:(a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the additional evidence collected by the department after the completion of assessment and appellate order can be treated as part of the record of such order for the purpose of Section 10(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act ?(b) Whether evidence collected after the expiry of four years' period of limitation under Section 21 of the U.P. Sales Tax-Act could be admitted in revision even if it is held as a part of the record ?2. M/s. Ujjal Singh Autar Singh (hereinafter referred to as the dealers) had a cloth business at Delhi and a branch at Bulandshahr. The Sales Tax Officer, Bulandshahr, started proceedings under Section 21 of the Act, agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1954All629
Mootham, J.1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution which gives rise to a question of some constitutional importance.2. The petitioner held the substantive rank of Inspector of Police. In 1946 he was appointed to the Anti-Corruption Department and in the following year he was promoted to the officiating rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police.In January, 1948, an anonymous letter was received by the Inspector-General of Police making charges against the petitioner. After making certain confidential enquiries the Inspector-General formed the opinion that the petitioner's conduct required investigation and he directed the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, to take the necessary action. At the same time he placed the petitioner under suspension and reverted him to his substantive rank of Inspector.3. Under the orders of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police an enquiry was conducted by Sri Sri Krishna, Superintendent of Police, Anti-C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007CriLJ3869
Vinod Prasad, J.1. Smt. Santosh Kumari, widow of Raja Ram, resident of Milavali, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, district Etah has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the prayer that the impugned order dated 21.9.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, in Misc. Case No. 387 of 2006 be quashed. By the impugned order her prayer seeking order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of her FIR for offence of murder of her husband in a fake and false encounter by the police was refused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah and her said application was ordered to be registered as a complaint case was passed by the CJM concerned and complaint case No. 6130 of 2006 was registered treating the application under Section 156(3) as a complaint.2. The factual matrix of the case are that the applicant filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah being Misc. Application No. 387...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2009(1)AWC391; [2008(119)FLR1180]
D.P. Singh, J.1. Heard Sri R. N. Singh, Sri Ashok Khare, Sri S.M.A. Kazmi learned senior advocates assisted by their instructing counsels ; Sri P. Section Baghel ; Sri R. B. Singhal and Sri Vijai Gautam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in these identical writ petitions challenging cancellation of appointments as constables in the Civil Police, Provincial Armed Constabulary and in the Wireless Wing of the Police.2. Heard Sri V.B. Upadhayay, learned senior advocate appearing as a special counsel for the State of U. P. assisted by Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned chief standing counsel alongwith other standing counsels.3. Both the parties agree that the issues involved in these cases are identical in nature and can be heard together and disposed of accordingly. For the sake of convenience, with the consent of parties the present writ petition is being treated as the leading petition.4. These bunch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(4)AWC3374; (2000)3UPLBEC2544
G.P. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner contested election for the office of Pradhan of village Bhura, Tehsil Kairana, district Muzaffamagar which was held on June 23, 2000. In the said election 4.902 votes were cast out of which 308 votes were rejected as invalid. The petitioner secured 1,597 votes while Rishlpal, respondent No. 4 secured 1,752 votes and was accordingly declared to have been elected as pradhan. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying for several reliefs' including a writ of quo warranto asking respondent No. 4 to show his authority to hold the office of pradhan, a writ of mandamus for restraining respondent No. 4 from functioning as pradhan of the village, a writ of mandamus commanding State Election Commission and District Returning Officer to hold fresh election to the office of pradhan of village Bhura in accordance with the revised electoral rolls after deleting names of those who were wrongly included in the electoral roll ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2003]130STC202(All)
A.P. Misra, J.1. These groups of petitioners have challenged the vires of the U.P. Tax on Luxuries Ordinance, 1994 (U.P. Ordinance No. 8 of 1994) promulgated by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh on 14th May, 1994 and the Notification No. TT-2-1767/IX-9 (382)/93-U.P., dated 28th May, 1994, the Notification No. TT-2-1768/IX-9 (382)/93-U.P., dated 28th May, 1994 and Notification No. TT-2-2032/XI-9 (382), dated 15th June, 1994. The petitioners are either manufacturers, producers, sellers within and outside State of specific branded cigarettes, pan masala, zarda, chewing tobacco, khaini under branded or unbranded name also sellers of unmanufactured tobacco. The purchase and sale by all the petitioners are done within or outside the State. Some of the petitioners have specifically pleaded their sale of tobacco outside the State being up to 98 per cent. The validity of the Ordinance is challenged being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 213, 245, 246, 265, 269, 286, 301 and 304 of the Constituti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 125Ind.Cas.477
Grimwood Mears, C.J., Boys and Young, JJ.1. One Basudevanand Gir obtained leave to appeal to the Privy Council and on the due date deposited a sum of Rs, 4,000 as security for costs and a further sum for printing charges.2. On the 2nd of November, 1927, Mr. Newal Kishore, who was the legal practitioner for Shantanand Gir, the respondent to the Privy Council appeal, drafted an application to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Allahabad in which he prayed that the cash certificates for Rs. 4,000-12-0 and a sum of Rs. 798 110 for printing charges, which had been paid into the High Court by the appellant, might be attached and the amount of the decree may be so far as possible satisfied by attachment thereof. The application came before Mr. Sudeshar Maitra on the 4th of February, 1928. His order was a short one and may be given in full:The items objected to relate to the printing charges and security furnished by the defendant-objector in connection with his appeal to His Majesty in Cou...
Tag this Judgment!