Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-02-1997
Reported in : AIR1998Raj28; 1997(3)WLC411; 1997(2)WLN46
B.R. Arora, J.1. Petitioner Smt. Saroj Chotiya, by this writ petition, has challenged (i) the validity of Section 26(xiv) and its proviso (e) of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, which provide general disqualification for the person to be elected as a Member, who has more than two children; and (ii) the legality and correctness of the order dated 13-1-97 (Annexure 4) by which the petitioner was put under suspension.2. Petitioner Smt. Saroj Chotiya, on 2X-9-95, was declared elected as a Member of the Municipal Board, Ratangarh from Ward No. 12. On 9-12-95 she gave birth to the third child. On 30-11-96, a notice under Section 63 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act (for short, 'the Act') was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary, Local-Self Government, by which she was asked to explain why she should not be removed from the post of the Member of the Board as she has incurred the disqualification under Section 26 of the Act by giving birth to the third child. She filed reply to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-04-1997
Reported in : 1997(2)WLC672; 1997(1)WLN682
B.R. Arora, J.1. This writ petition and the other eleven writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule raise the common controversies, namely, (i) the validity of Sections 19(L) read with Section 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994; (ii) the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the respective Chief Executive Officer, by which the petitioners were declared disqualified; and (iii) the jurisdiction of the Chief Executive Officer to hold an enquiry in the matter of declaring a Panch of a Member of the Panchayat Raj Institution to continue as the Sarpanch as he has incurred the disqualification on account of birth of an additional child in the family raising the number of the children to more than two. As all these writ petitions involve the common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioner was declared elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Baner (district Bhilwara) on 4.2.95. While he was acting as the Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-04-1997
Reported in : AIR1997Raj250
B.R. Arora, J. 1. This writ petition and the other eleven writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule, raise the common controversies, namely (i) the validity of Section 19 (L) read with Section 39 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994; (ii) the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the respective Chief Executive Officer, by which the petitioners were declared disqualified; and (iii) the jurisdiction of the Chief Executive Officer to hold an enquiry in the matter of declaring a Panch or a Member of the Panchayat Raj Institution to continue as the Sarpanch as he has incurred the disqualification on account of birth of an additional child in the family raising the number of the children to more than two. As all these writ petitions involve the common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioner was declared elected as the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Banera (district Bhilwara) on 4-2-95. While he was acting as the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-30-1997
Reported in : 1997CriLJ2170
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. On April 26,1980 PW-1 Ranjeet Singh, the then Food Inspector Niwai Distl, Tonk (Raj) noticed Lal Chand petitioner offering, besides other foodstuffs, chillies powder for sale at his shop at Niwai. After informing the petitioner of his intention to get the chillies powder examined by Public Analyst for proof of adulteration, if any, therein the Food Inspector purchased 600 grams of chillies powder for Rs. 6/- only, prepared three samples therewith, sent one of them to the Public Analyst for analysis and deposited the remaining two with the Local (Health) Authority.2. On analysis the Public Analyst reported that the sample of chillies powder was adulterated as the same did not conform to the prescribed standard of purity. The sample powder contained non-permitted coaltar Die of 'Red Shade' as well. The Food Inspector there upon obtained the requisite written consent of the Local (Health) Authority. Tonk and filed a complaint against the petitioner in the Court of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-30-1997
Reported in : 1998CriLJ2439
ORDERM.A.A. Khan, J.1. As common questions of law of considerable significance are involved in both these petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. these are disposed of by this common order.2. In S.B. Cr. Misc. Petn. No. 215 of 1997 Mukesh petitioner is alleged to have been found on 26-3-1989 keeping in his possession in a godown at 22, Godowns Factory Area, Jaipur 15 drums containing different kinds of petroleum products like mobile oil, greese liquid and black-hard and solid black oil, soap wash etc. with certain instruments and utensils to be used in preparing adulterated petroleum products. He was possessing no license to deal in petroleum products. He was, therefore, accused of having contravened clauses 3 and 4 of Lubricating Oil and Greese Order 1987 punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 (The Act). A police report under Section 170/173, Cr. P.C. was made against him to the Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act) Cases on 1 -3-1993 and on the same day the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-12-1997
Reported in : AIR1998Raj210
ORDERP.C. Jain, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28-9-1991 (Annx. 4) of the Authorised Officer, Bikaner and the order dated 10-1-1994 (Annex. 5) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner by which it was held that urban land measuring 497.61 sq. m. in respect of Govindnarain and Padmakar was acquirable. Urban Land (Ceiling and Regularisation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The brief facts material for the decision of this petition may be stated as follows. Petitioner No. 1's father late Shri Govindharain Vyas and petitioner Padmakar Vyas were, the cosharers in the ancestral property described in para 2 of the petition on the date of the coming into force of the Act. Petitioner No. 1 and Shri Govindnarain had, therefore, equal shares in the aforesaid properties. It may be stated that this fact was not disputed in the impugned orders. Both the above petitioners filed separate statements as required by Section 16(1) of the Act. Copies o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-18-1997
Reported in : (1999)ILLJ597Raj; 1998(2)WLC306
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. M/s. U.P.Hotels Limited, Varanasi and Hotel Clarks Amer, Jaipur have filed the present writ petition for issuance of a direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders dated June 16, 1980 (Annexure-VII), October 5, 1983 (Annexure-XI) passed by Respondent No. 2 and order dated May 4, 1981 (Annexure-VIII) passed by Respondent No. 3. M/s.U.P.Hotels Limited (hereinafter called as 'the petitioner') is a company registered under the Companies Act. Its head quarter is situated at New Delhi. It has got hotels at Varanasi, Agra and had also established Hotel Clarks Amer at Jaipur. It is stated that the Petitioner No. 1 is a company with multifarious activities i.e. to lend money, to establish or to promote establishments, in which the company may be interested to enter into any arrangements with the Government or authority and other activities.2. It is admitted that the hotel and restaurants fall under the provision of Employees' Provident Funds Act. The Petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-30-1997
Reported in : 1997CriLJ1825
G.L. Gupta, J.1. Through this appeal appellants Gobind Singh and Hanuman have challenged their conviction and sentence recorded under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar vide judgment dated 9-12-81 as per the following description:Gobind Singh :302, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 324, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 323/34, IPC -- 3 months R.I. Hanuman :302 read with 34, IPC -- Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50 449, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 324 r/w 34, IPC -- 6 months R.I. 323, IPC -- 3 months R.I.2. The case relates to the occurrence which took place at about 10-30 p.m. on 27-3-80 at the house of Baldeo Singh in Ward No. 12 of Raisinghnagar. The prosecution case is that Baldeo Singh and his-family members including Jaswant Singh alias Billoo were having rest in their house when some persons called Billoo from outside and they started hitting the shutters. Some 8 persdns entered the house and they caught hold...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-02-1997
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR913]; (1998)ILLJ979Raj; 1997WLC(Raj)UC665; 1997(2)WLN10
V.K. Singhal, J.1. The petitioner has challenged the order of determination of dues under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 dated May 6, 1986 by which the liability in respect of Good Work Reward and Contractor's Employee was determined.2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that good work reward has been paid to the employees for the over time which does not fall within the definition of basic wages as defined under Section 2(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is also submitted that the words 'any other similar allowance payable to the employee' have also been used u/Section 2(b)(ii) and as such even if the amount does not fall within the category of 'over time allowance' then it is 'any other similar allowance'. The second point which has been raised is with regard to liability which has been fixed on account of Contractors' employee and good work. It is stated that those em...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-03-1997
Reported in : AIR1998Raj165; 1998(1)WLC277
ORDERJ.C. Verma, J.1. Petitioner was running the business of Carver Ivory, popularly known as Mammoth Ivory under the license as issued by the State which license stood renewed from year to year. There are certain restraints on his business which have been provided under the Wild Lite (Protection) Act. It is stated by him that because of certain amendments made in Sections 5, 27, 33, 34, 35 and 37 vide Act No. 44 of 1991 in the aforesaid Act, his livelihood has been effected and exercising powers under Section 49 of the Amended Act, he has been informed vide Annexure-4 dated 23-12-1991 to the effect that the import of ivory has been banned and, therefore, the petitioner is restrained from dealing with ivory in any and whatsoever manner subsequent to 29-2-1992. The letter Annexure-4 has given a cause of action to the petitioner for challenging the amended sections of Act 44 of 1991. It is stated by the petitioner that the provisions of the amended law do not and cannot have effect of pr...
Tag this Judgment!