Court : Patna
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- œ1(i) That this is an application for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the office order dated 7.3.1995 bearing letter no. 9-M4-0648/92/79 (Annexure-10) and for quashing of the order dated 27.12.2011 bearing Memo No. 06/6-54/2011/581 (Annexure-13) as the same is contrary to the section 4(2) of the Bihar Non Government Elementary School (Taking over of control) Act, 1976 and enquiry report dated 16.7.86 (Annexure-5). (ii) To grant arrear of salary from the date of taking over i.e. 6.1.1981 to 6.3.1995. (iii) To issue writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari/commanding the respondent no.2 to 5 to act at per with the enquiry report dated 16.7.86 bearing letter no. 526 (Annexure-5) because admittedly petitioner was appointed on 6.8.1970 and his joining was accepted 6.8.1970, so it was incumbent upon the respondent no.2 to 5 to accord the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: "1(i) To quash the letter no. 5512 dated 22.8.2008 issued by District Superintendent of Education, Patna, whereby and whereunder he has rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate Ground. (Annexure-7) (ii) To make appointment on class three post to this petitioner as she was only child of her deceased mother and has attained the majority and posses requisite qualification." Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned prayer, has submitted that the impugned order passed by the District Superintendent of Education, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the D.S.E.) dated 22.08.2008 is factually incorrect and legally impermissible inasmuch as the petitioners appointment on compassionate ground could not have been refused on the ground that she was a minor on the date of death of her mother. In t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State as well learned counsel for the B.N. Mandal University. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: "1.(i) For quashing the Memo No. 458 dated 28.05.2012 (Annexure-6) passed by respondent no. 2 in as much as respondent no. 2 failed to adjudicate and decide the grievance of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 15.02.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 20078 of 2010 (Annexure-4) after considering Annexure-5 and impugned order makes the petitioner suffer for the fault of the college authorities who failed to produce records despite repeated directions by respondent no. 2 and on account of such failure the petitioner has been made to suffer. (ii) For directing the respondents authorities of the concerned college to produce the alleged termination order of the petitioner dated 07.01.1992, if any, and quash the same or the same be declared to be void and of no effect and also produc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Appellants Lalo Chaudhary, Upendra Chaudhary, Rajo Chaudhary, Maheshwar Chaudhary, Sachidanand Chaudhary, Debo Chaudhary, Yogendra Chaudhary who have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC, directing each of them to under go R.I. for life, under Section 148 IPC where for each of them independently directed to undergo RI for one year. Appellant Lalo Chaudhary held guilty for an offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and directed to undergo RI for six month with a direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment dated 27th March, 1990 passed by Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No.49 of 1986 have preferred instant appeal. 2. Daso Mehta (P.W.6) recorded First Information Report on 19.06.1985 at 09:00 AM at Police Station disclosing therein that yesterday while his son Rajendra Mehta was harvesting maize crop from a field which they have taken on Batai from Sheo Ratan Bhagat along with his wife while wife of Upendra Chaudhar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Rajiv Singh against the judgment of conviction dated 21.10.2011 whereunder, he has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 304B, 201, 498A of the I.P.C. and sentence dated 25.10.2011 directing to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 304B of the I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for two years as well as also slapped with fine appertaining to Rs. Five thousand in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month additionally under Section 201 of the I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for two years as well as also fined Rs. Five thousand in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for one month additionally, under Section 498A of the I.P.C. with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently. 2. After hearing both sides as well as going through the record, certain admitted fact is to be taken note of for better appreciation. Appellant Rajiv Singh happens to be the husband of Rani Archana Sinha (so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent preferred by the respondent no.9 arises from the judgment and order dated 16th September 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No.12054 of 2010. The matter relates to appointment of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra under the Gram Panchayat Mohiuddinpur, P.S. Hansa, District-Samastipur under the then prevalent Scheme (hereinafter referred to as žthe SchemeŸ) and absorption as Panchayat Teacher under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as œthe Rules of 2006?). The respondent no.10 Prashant Kumar approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in CWJC No.12054 of 2010 to challenge the order dated 26th June 2010 made by the District Magistrate, Samastipur in Miscellaneous Case No.1 of 2010 and the order of cancellation of his appointment made by the Gram Panchayat on 1st January 2009. It appears that as early as in April 2003, the writ ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 329/2012 wherein Raghu Yadav @ Rogha Yadav @ Amlesh Kumar Yadav happens to be appellant and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 215/2012 wherein Rutan Yadav happens to be appellant commonly originate from the judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2012 whereby and whereunder both the appellants have been found guilty for offence punishable under Sections 396 and 397 of the IPC and order dated 22.02.2012 whereby each of them has been directed to undergo RI for 10 years as well as fined Rs.5,000/- in default thereof to undergo additional imprisonment of three months under Section 396 of the IPC, RI for 8 years under Section 397 of the IPC with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-6, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No. 21/2010, challenged the same under present respective appeals and on account thereof, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. PW-8, Mantun Yadav had recorded his Fard-e-beyan on 17.06.200 at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
The petitioner has filed this criminal writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:- œ(i) For quashing of the F.I.R., bearing Alamganj P.S. Case No. 315 of 2012, registered under Section-135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground of being not maintainable as the same has been instituted for the same offence for which Alamganj P.S. Case No. 19 of 2009 was instituted; (ii) For a declaration that the second F.I.R. is not maintainable after quashing of the previous F.I.R./order taking cognizance in the previous F.I.R. for the same offence; (iii) For a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in pursuance of Alamganj P.S. Case No. 315 of 2012; (iv) For a declaration that the F.I.R. instituted in contravention to the statutory provisions cannot be maintained; (v) For any other relief or reliefs to which the petitioner may be found deemed entitled to....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. Criminal Appeal No.949 of 2011 filed on behalf of appellant Dinesh Singh and Criminal Appeal No.1134 of 2011 filed on behalf of appellant Jitendra Rai were preferred from Jail. However, in due course, appellant of Cr. Appeal No.1134 of 2011 was duly represented by the learned counsel while appellant of Cr. Appeal No.949 of 2011 was represented by the learned Amicus Curiae. 2. Both two above referred appeals commonly originate out of DRI Case no.06 of 2004, wherein judgment of conviction was delivered on 11.04.2011, convicting both the appellants namely Dinesh Singh and Jitendra Rai for an offence punishable under Sections 20(B), 23, 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act and each one of them was sentenced vide order dated 18.04.2011 to suffer rigorous imprisonment of ten years as well as fine of Rs. One lac in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment of one year additionally under each head with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Spe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 by the claimants against the judgment and order dated 22.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C.II, Nawada-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.V. Claim Case No.97/2004/20/2007 by which the claim application filed by the appellants has been dismissed. The case of the appellants, in brief, is that on 25.11.1996, the driver Shamim Khan, Khalasi Sajid Khan and owner Manjar Alam were going to Samastipur after loading coal from Jharia on Truck bearing registration no.WB-03-0312. On 26.11.1996 at about 4.00 P.M., the Truck crossed Nawada and Biharsharif. In the meantime, the unknown criminals kidnapped the truck with the aforesaid persons and killed them. After search, the truck was located at Biharsharif on 2.01.1997. Laheri P.S. Case No.2/97 was instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 414 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, it came to light that the aforesaid driv...
Tag this Judgment!