Court : Patna
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. Oral: (1) I have already heard the learned counsel, Mr. Achhaibar Singh on behalf of the petitioner and the learned senior counsel, Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 6. (2) The petitioner has filed this writ application for setting aside the order dated 04.07.2011 passed in Misc. Case No.6 of 2009 by Permanent Lok Adalat, Kaimur at Bhabhua as contained in Annexure-4 whereby the Permanent Lok Adalat has set aside the compromise award of the Lok Adalat dated 14.09.2006. (3) It appears that Rajnath Singh had filed pre litigation case No.411 of 2006 before the Lok Adalat. All the parties to the said pre litigation case No.411 of 2006 compromised and a compromise application was filed before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The said compromise was accepted by the Permanent Lok Adalat on 14.09.2006 and an award was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father, Rajnath Singh who had filed pre litigation case died in January, 2009. After death of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. All the aforementionedappeals have arisen out of a common judgment dated 5-2-1996 and the award dated 16-2-1996 passed by the First Additional Judicial Cormnissioner-cum-Tribunal constituted under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (for short 'the said Act') passed in Reference Cases Nos. 47,48,49,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62 and 63 of 1990, whereby and whereundcr the Tribunal on reference enhanced the amount of compensation payable to the claimants-respondents for the land acquired under the provisionsof the said Act. Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, the same have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of these cases are that the Central Government in exercise of power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act issued a notification dated 8-4-1978 of its intention to prospect for coal in the lands of village Kichto, P. S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J. 1. These two cases came to be heard before a Bench of three Judges on a reference made by me. Earlier while hearing these cases, sitting singly, I found it difficult to reconcile the views taken in two Division Bench decisions of this Court, one cited in support of the case of the petitioners and the other relied upon by the respondents. I accordingly, made an order of reference indicating the points of deviation in the two decisions. 2. The two petitioners, one in each of these two writ petitions were removed from service of the Bihar Co-operative Marketing Union, Ltd. (the Biscomaun, for short) by orders passed by its Administrator on the ground that their appointment was irregular and illegal. At the time of their removal they were given one month's wages in lieu of one month's notice (evidently to satisfy the requirements of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act) but admittedly no show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners before pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.N. Sahay, J.1.The constitutional questions in dispute in these group of writ applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India necessitate a consideration:(1) Whether Section 89(1) of the Bihar Coal Mining Area Development Authority Act, 1986 (Bihar Act 9 of 1986) (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Bihar Act' wherein 'cess' is levied on annual despatches of coal and coke, is null and void being ultravires the Bihar Legislature since by virtue of Mines & Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957 (Central Act 67 of 1957), the Union has assumed complete control over regulation of mines and minerals leaving no space for the State Legislature to legislate on the said subject.(2) Whether Section 90(4) of the Act wherein water charges are realised from colliery owners for supply of water at the rate to be determined by the State Government, is void since it suffers from vice of unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.2. The assessee-petitioners have appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Navin Sinha, J.1. The present appeal arises from the judgment in Misc. Appeal No. 242 of 1993 affirming the order dated 15.3.1993 in Claim Case No. 67 of 1988 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur. The appellant alone has been held liable by both the courts to pay the entire quantum of compensation to respondent No. 1 on the premise that the nature of the insurance policy taken by respondent No. 2 upon the appellant was 'comprehensive' in nature. The liability to third parties was unlimited over and above the insurance coverage to the vehicle and to the owner of the vehicle.2. On 16.7.1988 an accident took place in Village Madhaul, in the district of Muzaffarpur. One Alok Kumar Gupta was driving a motorcycle with a pillion ridder. The 'motorcycle was hit by a jeep being driven by respondent No. 2, who was also its owner. The deceased Alok Kumar Gupta was treated at Muzaffarpur and subsequently at Patna. Unfortunately he did not survive.3. The deceased w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
V.N. Sinha, J.1. Petitioner has filed this writ application assailing the order dated 23.4.2007, passed by the Election Tribunal in Election Petition No. 8 of 2006, Annexure-5, whereunder the learned Tribunal below has refused to dismiss the Election Petition under Order VII Rule XI(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears from perusal of the impugned order dated 23.4.2007, Annexure-5 that the Election Petition was filed beyond the period of limitation provided under the Election Rules, 2006. The election result was declared on 15.6.2006 and the petition was filed beyond 30 days on 7.8.2006. No sooner the returned candidate/petitioner learnt about the belated filing of the said Election Petition, he filed a petition under Order VII Rule XI(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure praying inter alia to reject the Election Petition on the ground that the same has been filed beyond the period of limitation, which petition has been dismissed holding that the delay in filing the petition is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J.1. These two writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Bihar Entry Tax Act were taken up for hearing in light of the direction of the Supreme Court in order dated July 14, 2006 in Jindal Stainless Limited v. State of Haryana : (2006)7SCC271 .2. Having regard to the fact that the law in Bihar underwent many changes during the past six years, it becomes necessary to begin at the beginning and to take a brief look at some developments taking place in the past.3. The Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas for Consumption, Use or Sale Therein Act, 1993 (Bihar Act 16 of 1993) came into force on August 22, 1993. According to its preamble, the Act provided for levy and collection of tax on entry of goods into local areas for consumption, use or sale therein. Section 2(c) of the Act defined 'entry of goods' as follows:(c) 'Entry of goods' with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means entry of goods into a local area from any place out...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
G.S. Chaube, J. 1. Faced with the inevitable consequence of non-compliance with the provision of Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), the petitioner has taken refuge in the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 (the Code) via Section 87 of the Act by filing an application under Section 151 of the Code for condoning the delay that has occurred in presenting this petition calling in question the election of a returned candidate, to be more precise, respondent No. 1. 2. Petitioner, Chitrasen Sinku was the Bharatiya Janta Party candidate in the election to 51 Singhbhum (ST) Parliamentary constituency held in 1998. Besides the petitioner, three others who arc respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in this petition, were in the fray after the scrutiny and withdrawal of nomination papers. Respondent No. 1 Bijay Singh Soy was a Congress candidale; whereas respondent No. 2 Mangal Singh Bobonga was sponsored by Jharkhand Mukti Mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, J.1. These two civil revision applications have been referred to Division Bench for decision as to whether the order passed by the appellate authority under Section 23(1) of (The Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is revisable by the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. As the point of reference is very limited, we need not go into the facts of the case in detail. Suffice is to say that the petitioners of both the cases filed claim cases against the ex-owners opposite parties under Section 23 of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner of Payments. After hearing the parties, the learned Commissioner allowed the claim of the petitioner of civil revision No. 104/92 (R) to some extent with interest. Against the said order the opposite party filed Misc. Appeal No. 159/80 under the provisions of the Act. As the entire claim of the petitioner of C.R. No. 225/92 (R) was disallowed by the learned C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
R.N. Sahay, J.1. A direct conflict between two seats of decisions of this Court on the interpretation of the Presidential Order issued under Article 342 of the Constitution has necessitated this reference to Full Bench. The significant question for consideration is as to whether the members of 'Lohar' caste in the State of Bihar, who are admittedly 'backward class' have right to claim the privileges available to the members of 'scheduled tribe' by virtue of the Presidential Order.2. Article 366(25) defines 'Schedule Tribe'- which means:'such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under Article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of this Constitution.' Under Article 342 of the Constitution of India it is provided as follows:Scheduled Tribes: 1. The President may with respect of any State or Union territory and where it is a State after consultation with the Governor thereof, by public notification specify the tri...
Tag this Judgment!