Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1998Raj173
ORDERP.P. Naolekar, J.1. On the bank of Chambal river, near Rawatbhata (District Chittorgarh), Rajasthan Atomic Power Project has been established after acquisition of the land by the Government. Units Nos. I and 2 of the said Rajasthan Atomic Power Project were commissioned few years back. Thereafter, the work of Units Nos. 3 and 4 was taken up by the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project. A notification was issued on 23-10-69 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Section3 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (Act No. 33 of 1962) declaring the area within the limit of 1 1/2 miles' radius from the reactor-site, situated on the right side of the Rana Pratap Sagar Lake, comprising land bearing Khasra Nos. 13/1. 14/1, 15, 16/1, 17/1 and 37/11 of village Kharil under Patwar Circle Matasar. Panchayat Bhainsrodgarh (Tehsil Begun, District Chittorgarh) to be prohibited area. The petitioners have undertaken contracts for construction of the various projects of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2002(2)WLN27
Rathore, J. 1. The present misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 313/2001 registered at Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar for offence under Section 323, 341, 336 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.2. The main content on the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the definition of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, offence under Section 3(1)(x) cannot be said to be committed by the accused-petitioners and if the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the aforesaid Act is not made out against the petitioners, the rest of the offences under Section 323, 341 and 336 IPC are bailable offences. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment (Sheosahai Sharma v. State of Rajasthan) (1), and requested that the aforesaid FIR should be quashed and set aside on this count alone.3. Heard learn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1985(2)WLN75
Surendra Nath Bhargava, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as Manager of the Marketing Co-operative Societies by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and was posted at Sawai Madhopur Co-operative Society (here in after called as the Society). The petitioner was suspended by the Chairman of the Society on January 16 1969 in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Board of Directors. Later on the petitioner was served with the charge sheet and ultimately his services were terminated by the order dated June 24, 1969 Annexure 5, by the President of the Society. There after, the petitioner raised the dispute Under Section 75 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (here in after called as the Act) before the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, The said matter was referred to the Dy. Registrar before whom the Society filed a reply and the Dy. Registrar rejected the petitioner's petition making the dispute vide his order dated February 16, 1971. The petitioner filed an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1999Raj223; 1999(2)WLC431
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J. 1. The petitioner after qualifying her MBBS examination from the University of Rajasthan had appeared in Pre P.G. (M.D./M.S.) Competitive Examination in the year 1997 conducted by the University of Rajasthan. She was allotted Roll No. 384. On declaration of the result her name appeared on merit No. 6. It is stated that she had attained merits as she throughout in her career had been attaining the meritorious position as per Schedule A and the total MBBS marks obtained by her were 64% and had always, cleared in 1st attempt. 2. The result declared by the University waschallenged by way of Public Interest Litigation being Writ Petition No. 3073/97 Dr. Anurag Dwivedi v. State of Rajasthan. By the orders of the High Court a committee was constituted by the Slate Government consisting of five Principals of the Medical Colleges situated in the State of Rajasthan. There was doubt cast about the result of lop 30 candidates appearing in the merit list. There were allegations ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(2)WLN561
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. This is the plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit for eviction.2. The premises in dispute is a Kachcha house situate in Jaipur City. The said premises were let out to the defendant Abdul Rahim on 1st December, 1966 on a monthly vent of Rs. 6/- per month. The said premises were purchased by the plaintiff. Smt. Umrao, on 21st Sep., 1971. After purchasing the said premises, the plaintiff served a notice dated 25th April, 1972! requiring the defendant, to vacate the premises and on his failure to do so, the plaintiff filed the suit giving rise to this appeal on 15th July, 1972. The said suit was based on the ground that the defendant had failed to pay the rent for the premises for the period from 21st September, 1971 and further that the premises were required by the plaintiff for personal occupation, as she is living in a rental premises. The said suit was contested by the defendant. The Munsif and Judicial Magistrate first class Jaipur City (East), Jaipur, by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1999Raj315; 2000(1)WLC137; 1999(1)WLN355
ORDERBhagwati Prasad, J.1. These three writ petitions involve identical questions of law and, therefore, they are being decided by a common order.2. These three writ petitions relate to different tenders. The amount and dates are different. Except these the controversy involved is same. For determination of the controversy involved in these cases, the facts as given out in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2363 of ; 988 are being considered.3. The petitioner firm was enlisted provisionally as 'A' Class Contractors and such enlistment was renewed from time to time and finally by order [Annexure/4] dated 22-2-1984, it was enlisted permanently as 'A' Class Contractors of the Public Works Department.4. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the orders of respondents by virtue of which the respondents have removed the name of the petitioner firm from the above list of 'A' Class Contractors on the one hand and on the other hand, the respondents are realising the amount of Rs. 50,000/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1974WLN429
K.D. Sharma, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave filed by Municipal Council, Jaipur and Umaid Singh, Food Inspector, against acquittal of the respondent of an offence punishable under Section 7 read with Food Adulteration Act, 1954, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The appeal arises out of the following facts : On 30th September, 1969, at 6.30 a.m. Shri Umaid Singh, Food Inspector, Municipal Council, Jaipur, found Bhura carrying 20 Kgs. of milk in a drum for sale at Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur. The Food Inspector suspected the milk to be adulterated, as it was not written en the outer space of the container of which animal the milk was. The Food Inspector, thereupon, disclosed his identity to the respondent and purchased 660 mm milk for 0.87 P. only from him. The Food Inspector, while taking the sample of milk for analysis, gave a notice in writing to the respondent then and there of his intention to have the sample so analysed. Thereafter be divided the sample of milk into t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1974WLN450
Kan Singh, J.1. The three writ petitions being of identical nature were heard together and can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The petitioners are dealers at Pali carrying on business inter alia in cotton seeds. They pray for a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or prohibition or any other suitable writ for striking down the item 'cotton seeds' from the list of commodities applicable to the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Pali and further the respondents be restrained from calling upon the petitioner to take a licence for carrying on trade in this commodity or to recover fees from the petitioners by taking any coercive action against them. It will be convenient to take the facts from writ petition No. 1981 of 1971.3. The petitioner avers that he deals in cotton seeds and not in any other commodity. He buys cotton seeds in the State of Gujarat and then brings them to Pali in Rajasthan and sells them at Pali where the commodity is used as a cattle feed. The petitioner furt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992WLN(UC)229
A.K. Mathur, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents may be restrained from taking any action against him under the provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Market Produce Act, 1961 and Rules framed there under (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1961) and has also prayed that Bye-law 2(7) framed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Shivganj may be declared as ultra vires, of the Act. Lastly, it is prayed that the respondent No. 2 may be directed to release the account books of the petitioner seized by the respondents.2. Petitioner is carrying on his business as a retail trader in food-grains, oil-seeds, sugar, cloth etc. at village Gohili, Panchayat Samiti, Sirohi for more than the last 40 years. The said village is situated within the area of Panchayat Samiti, Sirohi. By Notification dated 21st April, 1977, which was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 28th April, 1977, the State of Rajasthan issued a Notification under sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(3)WLC220; 2001(2)WLN531
ORDERBalia, J.(1). Heard learned counsel for the revenue. No one appeared for the respondent-assessee inspite of service.(2). The facts giving rise to this reference are that the respondent-assessee is a registered firm. It had purchased and installed a new colour Lab Processing Unit in December, 1984 at a cost of Rs. 7,37,088.24. The assessee created a reserve as required u/S. 32A and claimed investment allowance for the assessment year 1985-86 at Rs. 62,723.23 which claim was accepted by the Assessing Officer u/S. 143(1) and the same was re-opened u/S. 143(2)(b). The I.T.O. withdrew that investment allowance earlier granted vide order dated 29.3.88 and against which appeal was taken before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals). During this period regular assessment for the assessment year 1986-87 was completed u/S. 143(3) by order dated 31.3.87 In which the assessee's claim was accepted for the grant of investment allowance in respect of the aforesaid plant and machinery amounting to Rs. 1,...
Tag this Judgment!