Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : (2001)IIILLJ655Raj; 2000(2)WLN241
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. The petition was finally heard with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. As per averments made in the writ petition, the petitioners are office bearers of the Agro Industries Corporation Employees Union Rajasthan, Jaipur, which is affiliated with All India Trade Union Congress. Litigation of employees is subjudice in this Court. The petitioners have been contesting the cases against the respondents. The details of four pending cases in this Court, have been given in the writ petition. Both the petitioners have been authorised by the Union to look after these cases.2. The petitioners requested the Management to initiate enquiry in respect of illegalities and irregularities committed in the Corporation vide letters dated January 30, 1999, February 1, 1999 and February 5, 1999. It was also requested that the employees should be provided with the receipt of the Provident Fund as well as the copies of the State Insurance Statement. The meetings f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [2000(87)FLR100]; (2000)IILLJ1504Raj; 2000(3)WLC120; 2002(1)WLN206
Lakshmanan, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Hon'ble Justice Ms. GYAN SUDHA MISRA, dated of January, 29, 1998 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3007/1997. The appellant is a hospital run by an autonomous body, which is a charitable hospital and as per the government requirement number of patients are treated totally free of cost. According to the appellant, for the employees working in the hospital and covered by the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the management is paying contribution with respect to their own employees are concerned and are complying with the provisions of the Act. The open space leading to the hospital building is in possession of the management and is leased out to lessee on year to year basis and the lessee to whom the open place is leased out carries thereon the business of cycle stand by making his own arrangements and the employees employed with the lessee are un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1990WLN(UC)225
B.R. Arora, J.1. This miscellaneous petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated February 1,1987, passed by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gulabpura, by which the learned Magistrate framed charges Under Section 379, I.P.C. and Section 39 of the Indian Electricity Act, against the petitioner.2. The petitioner was working as the Assistant Engineer on April 21, 1983 in the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and was posted at Hurda. On April 22, 1983, an information was received in the Office of the petitioner that M/s. Jagetiya Paper Mills, Roopa Hilli, has unauthorisedly connected its transformer form 11 K.V. Line, charged the transformer and is using electricity for heavy motors in the mill without any meter. On receiving this information, the site was inspected by the petitioner alongwith Shri Vinod Kumar Lumba, Executive Engineer, and Shri Naresh Jain, Assistant Engineer, Hurda, and the report was found to be correct. As M/s. Jagetiya Paper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1985(1)WLN715
Dwarka Prasad Gupta, J.1. In both these appeals, a question about the validity of Minimum Wages (Rajasthan Amendment and Validation) Act, 1969 (here in after referred to as 'the Amending Act') has been raised.2. M/s Duduwala and Company Bhilwara and M/s Rajasthan Mineral and Company, Bhilwara filed two separate writ petitions in this Court challenging the validity of the provisions of the Amending Act. The learned single Judge by his orders dated September 24. 1971 declared that the provisions of the Amending Act were ultra vires of the powers of the State Legislature. The main order was passed by the learned single Judge in the case of M/s Duduwala & Co. while in M/s Rajasthan Mineral & Case the learned single Judge observed that the facts and circumstances of that case were identical with those of M/s Duduwala & Co.'s case and that the order given in Duduwala & Co's case would also govern and shall be considered as part of the order in M/s Rajasthan Mineral Co.'s case. 3. Both the wr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1986(1)WLN200
Narendra Mohan Kasliwal, J.1. As identical questions of law are involved in all the above special appeals, the same are disposed of by one single order.2. In order to appreciate the questions of law arising in these cases, we would like to narrate the facts of one case in SB. Civil Writ Petition No. 1274/75 Prithvi Singh v. State of Rajasthan.3. The petitioner held 47 Bighas, 7 Biswas of land in Village Palkiya, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota. The petitioner filed a return on 3-1-1974 under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973, here in after referred to as 'new ceiling law'. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramganj Mandi passed an order on 10-4-1975 (Annexure-2) that the matter was to be decided under the old ceiling law and as the case had not been registered under the old ceiling law, the same be registered now, and proceedings be taken up separately. It was further directed that the petitioner should file a return under the old ceiling law ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(1)WLN333
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Petitioner was elected as a Member from Ward No. 15 of Municipal Board, Padampur in the election held in August, 1995 and was thereafter also elected as Chairperson of the Board. The impugned order was made to remove the petitioner from Chairperson as well as membership of the Board and she was declared disqualified to contest any election for five years, which reads as under:jktLFkku ljdkjLok;Rr 'kklu foHkkxDzekad % i0 2ptkWap Mh,ych99911 t;iqj] fnukad& 1&6&2000vkns'kJh erh foeyk nsoh] v/;{k] uxj ikfydk] ineiqj ds fo:) f'kdk;r izkIr gksus ij tkWp djok;h x;hA izkFkfed tkap es nks'kh ik;s tkus ij jktLFkku uxj ikfydk vf/kfu;e] 1959 dh /kkjk 63 ds rgr fuyfEcr dj muds fo:)^ U;kf;d tkWp djokbZ xbZ A U;kf;d tkWp vf/kdkjh la;qDr fof/k ijke'khZ f}rh; fof/k foHkkx] 'kklu lfpoky; us viuh U;kf;d tkWp fjiksZV fnukad 23&5&2000 es Jherh foeyk nsoh] v/;{kk uxj ikfydk ineiqj ds fo:) yxk;s x;s rhuks vkjksi fl)^ ik;s x;s gsSAvr% jktLFkku uxj ik...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007(3)WLN363
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. The instant writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.9.1999 (Annx.4), by which the reference Under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Reforms Act, 1956 has been accepted against settlement entries made in Samvat Year 2020 (corresponding to 1963).2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the land in dispute, measuring 25 Bighas 15 Biswas of Khasra Nos.248 and 261 situate in the Revenue Estate of village Jayal (district Nagaur), belonged to deity Sri Raghunathji, whose Pujari was Shri Girdhari Das. The land used to be cultivated by one Hanuta Ram on behalf of the deity. During the settlement proceedings in the Samvat Year 2020. Hanuta Ram was shown, in column No. 5. as Khatedar - tenant instead of deity Sri Raghunathji through its Pujari Girdhari Das. When such entries came to the knowledge of the Additional District Collector, he sent the matter to the Settlement Commissioner, who, subsequently vide order dated 7.3.1998...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2008(1)WLN177
Rajesh Balia, Actg. C.J.1. This writ petition was preferred in 2005 in the circumstances we shall presently notice. After being heard by two learned Single Judges after admission, and once judgment was reserved but the petition was not ultimately decided and when interim relief was refused by the learned Single Judge on 01.03.2007 and directed the petition to be heard in due course, this Special Appeal No. 292/2007 was preferred against the order dt. 01.03.2007.2. Looking to the nature of the controversy and urgency of decision and looking to importance of the issue raised, on the request of both the learned Counsel the Division Bench passed the following order on 30.08.2007:It is agreed by the learned Advocates appearing in this matter that the matter can be decided finally. Learned advocates for the respondents have stated before the Court that even though this appeal is filed against an interlocutory order of the learned Single Judge, this Court may decide the entire controversy ari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Prakash Tatia, J.1. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 236/1984, following question has been referred to the Larger Bench by the order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court headed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and one of us (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prakash Tatia):Whether Hindustan Zinc Limited is 'State' or 'any other authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India ?2. The facts of the case of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 236/1984 are that the petitioner, an employee of the respondent-Company, appointed in the year 1968, faced disciplinary proceedings wherein order of termination of his service was passed on 23.12.1983 (Annex.31) which was challenged by the petitioner by preferring S.B. Writ Petition No. 236/1984 before the single bench of this Court on 11.1.1984. According to the petitioner, the respondent Hindustan Zinc Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is Government of India Enterprise and is an instrumentality o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
S.K.M. Lodha, President: (1) These are five connected appeals under Sec. 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") arising out of a common order dated 17.10.89 passed in different five complaints. They were heard together and we consider it proper to dispose them of by a common order. (2) The facts leading to these five appeals are identical. We may notice the facts in Appeal No. 107 of 1989. The Complainant has stated in Complaint No. 288/89, which has given rise to Appeal No. 107 of 1989 that he resides within the local limits of the Municipal Council, Bikaner in the building known as Manohar Bhavan, which is situated near Lal Bahadur Sabji Mandi, Rani Bazar, Bikaner. The Opposite-Party did not pay any head to the complaints made by the complainants. They, therefore filed the complaints on 1.9.89 praying that the Opposite-Party may be directed to remove the pollution. After notice, the Opposite-Party Appellant reised a preliminary objection stating that the compla...
Tag this Judgment!