Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2004(1)AWC323; [2004(102)FLR514]; (2004)1UPLBEC919
ORDERM. Katju and U. Pandey, JJ.1. Learned standing counsel may file counter-affidavit within three weeks.2. Issue notice to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 returnable at an early date.3. The important question of law involved in this petition is whether the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. has power to suspend or order any inquiry against the President of a District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (also known as the District Forum).4. We are prima facie of the opinion that the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has no such powers, and hence, prima facie the impugned orders dated 4.9.2003 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) and 10.9.2003 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) are illegal.5. Section 10(1A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 states that 'every appointment under Sub-section (1) shall be made by the State Government.'6. Section 10(1) refers to the District Forum, and hence appointment of the President of the District ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(3)AWC2204
O.P. Garg, J. 1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the propriety and correctness of the order dated 12.10.1998, Annexure-21 to the writ petition whereby wholesale licence of the petitioners to distribute the kerosene oil was cancelled by the licensing authority-respondent No. 3 and the order dated 24.2.1999, Annexure-26 passed by the respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeal of the petitioners under Paragraph 12 of the U. P. kerosene Control Order, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Control Order, 1962').2. The petitioner No. 2 M/s. Deewan Oil Company is a registered firm having its office at Chhatta Bazar. Agra. The petitioner No. 1--Sanjeev Dewan is one of its partners. The firm carries on the business as a wholeseller in kerosene oil having licence No. 35 issued under the Control Order, 1962. The supplies of kerosene oil are received by the petitioners from the Indian Oil Corporation. Under the orders of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(4)AWC537; (1999)2UPLBEC825
S.H.A. Raza, J.1. The fate of this writ petition which has been filed by M/s. Ram Gopal Chandra. Daya Ram Singh and Raj Kishore. Singh. the Chairman and Members of U. P. Higher Education and Services Commission, hinges on the reply to the following questions.1. Whether a direction restraining the Commission to make selections can be issued by the Stale Government in exercise of its powers under Section 2 of U. P. State Control of Public Corporation Act. 1975 (hereinafter referred as Corporation Act, 1975) and Section 6 (3) of U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980. because selection covers the legislative activity. 2. Whether the impugned order of removal passed against the petitioner No. 1 from the post of Chairman and against remaining two who are the members of the Commission is non est inasmuch as the same is in violation of Section 6 of the U. P. Higher Education Services Commission Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Commission Act, 1980) and Rule 5 of the Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(4)AWC616
D.K. Seth, J.1. A punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner pursuant to the resolution dated 12th of October, 1991, which was approved by the Commission by its order dated 8th of June, 1995, communicated by communication dated 13th of June, 1995 being Annexure-11 to the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition.2. Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no enquiry report was ever shown to the petitioner neither any copy of the enquiry report was given to him. Therefore, relying on the decision in the case of Union of India and others v. Mohammad Ramjan Khan. 1991 (1) SCC 588, he contended that the order of punishment cannot be sustained. He further contended that after the reply was submitted by the petitioner on 14th of September. 1991. a report was forwarded to the Committee of Management by the Inquiry Committee on 20th of September. 1991 and the petitioner was asked to appear in the enquiry on 12th of October, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(2)AWC2009; (2005)2UPLBEC1530
Pradeep Kant and K.S. Rakhra, JJ.1. The petitioner, while working as a Block Development Officer, was suspended vide order dated 30.3.1992, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. However, the order of suspension was revoked after the issuance of the charge-sheet vide order dated 6.11.1992. A charge-sheet containing several charges was issued and served upon the petitioner on 19.9.1992. Reply to the charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner on 26.9.1992.2. It appears that Deputy Development Commissioner, Varanasi was appointed as Enquiry Officer and since after the retirement of the permanent incumbent Sri F.R. Khan from the post Deputy Development Commissioner, Varanasi on 30.6.1992, no regular officer was appointed, therefore, the enquiry was proceeded with by the officer who was holding the charge of Deputy Development Commissioner on additional basis, in addition to his own regular charge. The State Government on coming to know that there 'was no officer regularly appointe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1998(1)AWC491; (1997)2UPLBEC1395
D.P. Mohapatra, C.J. 1. The learned single Judge, before whom the case was initially laid, referred the following 2 questions for consideration by a larger Bench:1. Whether the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal have any statutory orlegal obligation to decide any issue as preliminary issue while adjudicating an Industrial dispute in accordance with procedure provided under Rules framed under U. P. Industrial Disputes Act? 2 Whether the High Court can in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution mandate a Court or Tribunal to follow a procedure contrary to statutory Rules? When the case was listed before a Division Bench, the Bench took the view that the matter should be placed before a Full Bench for deciding the questions referred by the learned single Judge. That is how the case has been listed before this Full Bench for decision on the aforementioned questions.2. Shortly stated, the question that falls for determination is whether in a case where the validity ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1965All280
M.H. Beg, J.1. This is a second appeal by a wife who had filed a petition under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act thereinafter referred to as the Act) for judicial separation against her husband the respondent Kamta Prasad. The husband too had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act against the appellant for the restitution of his conjugal rights to him before the appellant's petition for judicial separation. Both the proceedings were consolidated and the evidence led by both the parties was common and the two cases were disposed of by a common Judgment. The trial court dismissed both the petitions. In each of the two proceedings, there was a separate issue on the question whether the respondent had treated the appellant with such a cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the appellant that it will be harmful or injurious for her to live with the respondent. The two separately framed issues on the same question were considered and decided as one common issue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 1999(3)AWC2595; (1999)3UPLBEC2168
V.M. Sahai, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether where four teachers are chargesheeted for the same misconduct and punishment of removal from service is proposed by the Committee of Management which is modified with regard to three teachers by District Inspector of Schools to stopping of one increment for one year, whether the punishment of removal from service awarded to the petitioner, on parity, can be modified on the ground that the co-detinquents on identical charges have been awarded minor punishment.2. The short matrix of the case is that the petitioner was a confirmed Assistant Teacher in L.T. grade working since 1.7.1970 in Rajarsh Purshottam Das Tandon UchchatarMadhyamik Vidyalay, Naini, Mahewa, District Allahabad (in brief institution). He and three teachers working C.T. grade, namely, Laxmi Kant Bhatt, Ram Krishan Singh and Shiv (in brief C.T. grade teachers) were issued charge-sheet for misconduct on the same and identical charg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2003(2)AWC1434
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This matter has come before us in order to resolve the conflict of opinions in two decisions rendered by learned single Judges of this Court.2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner who was Principal of an intermediate college. A charge-sheet was served upon him on 15.7.1993 and he was required to appear before the enquiry committee constituted by the Committee of Management of the Institution. After conclusion of the enquiry, the Committee of Management of the Institution passed a resolution proposing his dismissal from service. The resolution was sent to U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) for grant of approval. The Commission sent a notice to the petitioner requiring him to send his reply. He was afforded an opportunity of hearing by a single member subcommittee of the Commission. Thereafter, the Commission passed an order on 17.7.1995 approving the proposal of the Committee of Manageme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2007(4)AWC3181
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The petitioner seeks the quashing of the order dated 16th July, 2005 At passed by the Chancellor of the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi as well as the enquiry report dated 2nd June, 2005 submitted by the Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi.2. The petitioner was at the relevant time functioning as the Vice-Chancellor, of the Bundelkhand University, Jhansi (hereinafter referred to as the 'University') which was established under the provisions of U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). This was his second tenure of three years and was in continuity of his earlier tenure from 1999 to 2002 and was to come to an end on 31 July, 2005 but the Chancellor of the University by the order dated 16th July, 2005 purporting to exercise his powers under Section 12(12) of the Act removed the petitioner. The said removal order was preceded by issuance of a show cause notice dated 24th June, 2005 issued by the Chancellor of the University whereby the ...
Tag this Judgment!