Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-07-1986
Reported in : 2(1986)ACC559
G.M. Lodha, Acting C.J.1. A rickshaw-puller (rickshaw-chalak) Kanhaiyalal, was knocked down by the State Roadways Corporation Bus No. RRG 8694 in an accident which took place on 27-11-80 on the way between Chhoti Chopar and Chandpole Gate of Jaipur City. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is a public undertaking of the State of Rajasthan. The Corporation has got separate funds for the payment of compensation as they are exempted from insurance of the vehicles. The Corporation instead of making payment of compensation to the widow of rickshaw-chalak and his kids, entered into litigation and dragged poor widow to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for filing claim petition.2. The socio-economic pragmatic approach exhibited by accident claims laws, expressly provides for compensation. It is customary and traditional for the State or its functionaries, on such occasions to act on humanitarian grounds and grand ex gratia monetary relief to the deceased's family. But as an anti-thesi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-07-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Raj68; 1986(2)WLN632
G.M. Lodha, Actg. C.J.1. A rickshaw-puller (rickshaw-chalak) Kanhaiyalat, was knocked down by the State Roadways Corporation bus No. RRG 8694 in an accident which took i place on 27-11-80 on the way between Chhoti Chopar and Chandpole Gate of Jaipur City. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is a Public undertaking of the State of Rajasthan. The Corporation has got separate funds for the payment of compensation as they are exempted from insurance of the vehicles. The Corporation instead of making payment of compensation to the widow of rickshaw-chalak and his kids, entered into litigation and dragged poor widow to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for filing claim petition.2. The socio-economic pragmatic -approach exhibited by accident claims laws, expressly provides for compensation. It is customary and traditional for the State or its functionaries, on such occasions to act on humanitarian grounds and grant ex gratia monetary relief to the deceased's family. But as an anti-the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-19-1986
Reported in : 1986(1)WLN431
Shyam Sunder Byas, J.1. By his judgment dated September 16, 1980 the learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh convicted the accused Jagdish Chandra Under Sections 302, IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo three months' rigorous imprisonment of the first count and three years' rigorous imprisonment on the second count. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. The accused has come-up in appeal to challenge his conviction.2. Abdul Rahim the deceased victim in the case - was a resident of Bassi P.S. Vijaypur district Chittorgarh. The accused is, also a resident of the same town. He had, however, migrated to Chittorgarh, but at times used to come to Bassi. When the accused was at Bassi, he used to live in a shop shown by digit '8' in site plan Ex. P 3. At about 8.30 a.m on May 12, 1979, PW 2 Rajmal Teli was taking his bullock-cart loaded with grass-bundles to his house. The cart was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-02-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Raj8; 1986(2)WLN444
ORDERM.C. Jain, J.1. This writ petition can be disposed of on a very short point regardingthe invalidity of the notification dated February 9, 1979 (Annx. 3). However, a few relevant facts may briefly be stated.2. There is a 'Jag Mandir Palace' situated in Pichhola Lake in Udaipur City. In the year 1962, Maharana Bhagwatsingh, Ex-Ruler of Mewar sold Jag Mandir Island along with Sister-Island Jag Niwas and other properties to the petitioner-company by means of a registered sale-deed. The Government of Rajasthan published a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Monuments, Archaeological Sites and Antiquities Act, 1961 (Act No. 19 of 1961) in the Rajasthan Gazette dated January 12, 1967 proposing to declare, inter alia, Jag Mandir Palace, Udaipur as a protected monument. The Jag Mandir was mentioned at S. No. 187 in the said notification with the following description in column No. 5. The relevant part of the notification (Annx. 2) reads as under : --'EDUCATION ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-11-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Raj186; 1987(2)WLN643
ORDERM.B. Sharma, J.1. In the above numbered six writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the vires of the Rajasthan Land Tax Act, 1985 (for short, the State Act). The State Act was passed by the Rajasthan State Legislature in 1985 and received the assent of the Governor on July 31, 1985. According to its preamble it is law which has been enacted to provide for imposition of tax on land in areas other than urban areas in the State of Rajasthan and the matters incidental thereto. Under Section 3 of the State Act the tax is imposed on the annual value of the land. Annual valuehas been defined in Section 2(a) of the State Act. So far as the annual value in the case of land which are governed by the mining leases is concerned, it is given in Section 2(a)(i) of that Act. The petitioners, have challenged the vires of the Act inter alia on the ground that it is beyond the legislative competence of the Legislature and covered under entry No. 54 of the Union List-I of the VIIth Schedule t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-29-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Raj112; 1987(1)WLN103
ORDERG.M. Lodha, J. 1. This revision incidently raises a very important question of constitutional law also. The petitioners claim that they are marginal farmers and they have produced the certificate issued by Tehsildar, Jhabua certifying that the latter petitioner is a marginal farmer. Jhabua is in Madhya Pradesh on the border of Rajasthan.2. Both the States, Madhya Pradesh as well as Rajasthan, in consonance with Art. 46 of the Constitution, have enacted various laws for providing protection to poor and down trodden segments of society.3. One of the legislations in Rajasthan is under the caption 'the Rajasthan Scheduled Debtors (Liquidation of Indebtedness) Act, 1976' enacted for providing liquidation to marginal farmers, agricultural labourers and rural artisans in Rajasthan. The object of the Act was an emergency measure to combat against the increasing indebtedness amongst farmers and down trodden rural masses.4. In Madhya Pradesh, in 1975 a similar law under the caption 'The Mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-21-1986
Reported in : AIR1987Raj169; 1986(2)WLN674
S.N. Bhargava, J.1. This is a second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Jaipur Distt. Jaipur reversing the decree passed by Munsif, Bandikui and decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents for injunction.2. The plaintiff-respondents are tenants of shop No. 57 situated in the grain-market known as 'Madho Ganj' in Bandikui town. The said shop formerly belonged to the erstwhile Jaipur State and now, after formation of theState of Rajasthan, it belongs to the State of Rajasthan. There is an open piece of land measuring 30' x 13' in front of the said shop to its East. Towards the North of the said shop, there is a Government building known as 'Rahdari' having a window and a small door 'Pai'. The said building had been purchased by the defendant-appellants. The plaintiff's have been using the open plot of land in front of their shop for stocking and exhibiting the grains in which business they are dealing for the last 45 years. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-07-1986
Reported in : 1987(12)ECC389; 1987(10)LC307(Rajasthan); 1986(26)ELT703(Raj); 1986(2)WLN612
A.K. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the Notification No. 150/85-CE dated 15th July, 1935 (Annexure-P).' It has further been prayed that the respondents may be directed not to modify or alter the excise duty relief as postulated under Notification No. 107/81-CE and No. 88/84-CE.2. The petitioner No. 1 is an existing company and it has its registered office at 7, Council House Street, Calcutta. The petitioner established two factories at Kankroli in the district of Udaipur for manufacturing tyres. By this writ petition the principal grievance is the withdrawal of the excise relief scheme which was issued for a specified period by the Central Government in order to encourage 'the new investment in tyre industry and to partially off-set the high cost of such new investment. Mr. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner made two principal submissions that once the excise relief is given by the Central Government and on that basis the petitioner Company acte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-19-1986
Reported in : AIR1988Raj2; 1987(1)WLN134
D.L. Mehta, J.1. Right and duty co-exists. There cannot be any right without any duty and there cannot be any duty without any right. It is a happy sign that the citizens of Jaipur, through the present petitioner Mr. L. K. Koolwal has moved to this Court in the matter of sanitation of Jaipur City. Good number of affidavits have been filed by the citizens of Jaipur relating to each of the locality referred to in the writ petition to show that the sanitation problem is acute in Jaipur which is hazardous to the life of the citizens of Jaipur. Insanitation leads to a slow poisoning and adversely affects the life of the citizen and invites the death at an earlier date than the natural death.2. Article 51A of the Constitution has been inserted in the Constitution of India vide 42nd Amendment in 1976. We can call Article 51A ordinarily as the duty of the citizens, but in fact it is the right of the citizens as it creates the right in favour of the citizen to move to the Court to see that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-07-1986
Reported in : AIR1986Raj131; 1986(1)WLN23
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. This petition is directed against Rajasthan State Electricity Board and its concerned officers wherein the petitioner has averred that he being the brother of late the Ruler of Jodhpur Maharaja Hanwant Singhji was entitled to the facilities of free supply of electricity and water under the letter of theGovernment of India No. E-4/P/49 dated March 24, 1949. The aforesaid facility was cancelled by the Government of Rajasthan by its letter No. F. 22 (36) GAB 67 dt. Sept. 8, 1967 from April 1, 1967, According to the petitioner after the cancellation of aforesaid facilities from April 1, 1967, the petitioner began paying electric charges regularly. The petitioner further averred that the Rajasthan State Electricity Board was constituted in the year 1957 and all the previous dues of Electricity Department of the State Government vested in the Board vide Section 60(1) of the Electricity (Supply) Act. 1948 (Central Act No. 54 of 1948) The respondent No. 4 (Assistant Engin...
Tag this Judgment!