Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1979MP163
G. P. Singh, C.J. 1. Petitioner No. 1, namely, The Bhopal Sugar Industries Limited, Sehore, is a public limited company constituted under the Companies Act, 1956, petitioner No. 2 is the constituted attorney and factory manager of the petitioner company. The petitioner company has a factory situate at Sehore in the State of Madhya Pradesh for manufacture of sugar by vacuum pan process. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the validity of the Sugar (Price Determination for 1977-78 Production) Order, 1977, in relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh. By an amendment, the petitioners also challenge the validity of the Sugar (Price Determination for 1977-78 Production) Amendment Order, 1978, which was made during the pendency of the petition. These orders remained operative till 16th August 1978 when sugar was completely decontrolled.2. Section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') confers power on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2000)159CTR(MP)53
ORDERD.P.S. Chouhan, J.Threatened with the invasion of their rights, the petitioners, in these two writ petitions, numbered 2593/1997 and 1723/1998, approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, seeking protection against illegal and arbitrary action against them which on being heard together are decided conjointly.2. The controversy in these petitions centres round the construction of the house known as 'Dev Shree' and in that regard, the following facts are' relevant .(1) Shri Arjun Singh and his wife Sint. Saroj Singh, who are petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2593/1997, and Shri Ajay Singh, their son, who, is petitioner is Writ Petition No. 1723 of 1998, after purchasing an agricultural land near Kerwa Dam in village Mandora, Tahsil Huzur, District Bhopal, constructed a house over a portion thereof, named as 'Dev Shree' and which being in the vicinity of Kerwa Dam, was also known as 'Kerwa House' (hereinafter referred to as 'the house), the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)MPHT414
ORDERRajendra Menon, J. 1. Challenging the order dated 20-2-2008 (Annexure P-l) passed by the State Government transferring the petitioner, who is working as Registrar, Awadhesh Pratap Singh Vishwavidyalaya, Rewa (hereinafter referred to 'APSV') in the same capacity to Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar, petitioner has filed this petition.2. Challenge to the order of transfer is made mainly on two grounds:- (a) Frequent transfer; and (b) Malafides attributed to respondent No. 4 and the role played by respondent No. 4 in getting the petitioner transferred from Rewa.3. Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Registrar after he was selected by the Public Service Commission, in the year 1986. He was promoted as Deputy Registrar in the year 1991 and thereafter as a Registrar in the year 2001. It is the case of the petitioner that he has an unblemished service record and, in the petition averments are made to indicate the exemplary service record of the petitioner. It is stated by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR W.P. No.11811/2008 (s) Ku. Jayshree Nandeshwar Vs. The State of M.P. & another Present: Honble Shri Rajendra Menon, J.& Hon'ble Mrs. Vimla Jain, J.______________________________________________________ Shri Manot Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1. Shri V. S. Shroti, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ashish Shroti, for respondent No.2. __________________________________________________ ORDER (...82013) Per : Shri Rajendra Menon, J.Petitioner who was a Judicial Officer has filed this writ petition challenging the orders Annexures P/1 and P/ 2 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively removing her from service.2. The Disciplinary Authority vide Annexure P/1 dated 22.1.2008 imposed the punishment of dismissal from service after conducting a departmental enquiry into certain 2 allegations of misconduct committed by the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)MPHT256
Ajit Singh, J.1. This appeal, under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 17-1-2006 passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 4122/1993 by the learned Single Judge whereby the penalty of dismissal from service of respondent has been quashed with a direction to the appellants to reinstate him with full back wages.2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that appellant No. 1 is the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board (in short, 'the Board') and appellant No. 2 is its Chairman. On 7-4-1981 a contract was given by the Board to one S.K. Pathak for the construction of 10 HIG and 20 MIG houses near Parijat Hotel in Satna town. Initially, the period of contract was for one year which was extended from time to time up to 15-3-1985. The respondent, who was working as Executive Engineer in the Board, was posted in Satna Division from 10-5-1982 to 29-6-1985. It is not in dispute that he supervise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1984CriLJ975
ORDERC.P. Sen, J.1. Under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners are seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the District Magistrate. Chhatarpur, dated 7-12-1981 attaching the properties of the petitioners under Section 14 of M.P. Dakaiti Aur Vyapaharan Pra-bhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam).2. Petitioner No. 1 Gorelal is the husband of petitioner No. 2 Mannubai and father of petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 Laxmiprasad and Deviprasad. They constitute a joint Hindu family and residing in house No. 25 on Gandhi Road, Chhatarpur. They own Gupta Lodge and New Gupta Lodge near bus-stand, Chhatarpur. They also own some agricultural land. Gupta Lodge is run in partnership between petitioners 1 and 3 while New Gupta Lodge is in partnership between petitioners 2 and 4. The petitioners 1 and 2 settled down at Chhatarpur in the year 1948-49 and they had a modest beginning by running a grocery shop in the year 1951 and then they started a sw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2008)ILLJ36MP
Dipak Misra, J.1. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated June 24, 2004, Annexure P-1 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in short 'the Tribunal' in Original Application No. 430/02.Essential facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this petition are that the respondent No. 1, Divisional Forest Officer was served with the charge-sheet dated October 1, 1990 and placed under suspension. The1 charges levelled against him pertained to financial irregularities committed by him during the period when he was posted in Social Forestry Division, Sehore and Social Forestry, Division Rajgarh in the year 1989 and 1990. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the departmental proceeding and the order of suspension, the respondent No. 1 knocked at the doors of the Tribunal in Original Appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. Since in both the cases petitioners have sought quashing of the first information report dated 6.1.2010 leading to the registration of Crime No.2/2010 and its investigation by Special Police Establishment Lokayukt, Bhopal, this order shall govern the disposal of both the cases.2. Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Bhopal registered the aforesaid first information report on 6.1.2010 against the petitioners under sections 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. According to F.I.R, complainant Rashmi Pathak submitted a written report to Lokayukt, Bhopal on 12.5.2009. After verification, Special Police registered the F.I.R. containing accusation that Dev Vrat Mishra, the then DSP Lokayukt, Jabalpur purchased house No.945 situated at Gulab Singh ward, Jabalpur from one N.Vijayan. In the sale deed, area of the house was shown as 1736 sq.ft. and the stamp duty of Rs.74,025/- was paid. On verificati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1984MP13
G.L. Oza, J.1. This petition and Misc. Petitions Nos. 1635/83, 1636/83, 1637/83. 1639/83. 1640/83. 1649/83. 1671/83. 1677/83, 1693/83. 1699/83. 1704/83 and 1713/83 raise a common preliminary question and in view of this, notices were issued to the respondents. In response to the notice, a return has been filed raising a preliminary objection about the maintainability of these petitions in view of. Section 117 of the M. P. Panchayat Adhiniyam. 1981. contending that as an alternative efficacious remedy for challenging the election of pancha-yat is available Under Section 117. the petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. Learned counsel for various petitioners therefore, were heard on this question and the learned Government Advocate was also heard.2. It was contended by the learned Government Advocate that although under Section 117 of the M. P. Panchayat Adhiniyam. 1981 rules have not been framed but the officer who can entertain the petition has been notified and. therefore, an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1982MP159
ORDERG.L. Oza, J.1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order passed by Seventh Addl. District Judge, Indore, dt. 5-5-1980.2. The non-applicant No. 2 claiming to be a trustee of Gandhi Mazdoor Smarak Nidhi submitted an application to the Registrar of Public Trusts. This application was submitted on 16th May 1979 and the non-applicant No. 2 sought a relief of permission to file appropriate proceedings against the Chairman, the present petitioner. The Registrar of the Public Trusts issued a notice to the Chairman (the petitioner) and after the reply was filed by him. the Registrar without further enquiry into the matter, sent the file to the court of District Judge for suitable action. On receiving these papers, the learned Additional District Judge issued notices to all the parties and also to the Registrar and thereafter passed the impugned order sending the matter to one Shri N. B. Sirpurkar, Advocate for recording evidence as he may think necessary. It ...
Tag this Judgment!