Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Dec-16-2004
Reported in : RLW2005(2)Raj779; 2005(2)WLC465
Dalip Singh, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Manish Dixit who is undergoing the sentence awarded to him in Sessions Case No. 158/1994 having being convicted for offences under Sections 302,397 and 364 I.P.C. and 7/25(1)(a) of the Arms Act. The petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and lesser sentence for the other offences and at present he is lodged in Central Jail, Jaipur.2. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought the relief that in accordance with the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Prisoners Open Air Camp Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1972'), he is entitled to be sent to the Open Air Camp at Sanganer and he seeks a direction for being sent to the said Open Air Camp. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was taken in the custody on 12.07.1994. He has already served the sentence of seven years for the offence under Section 397 I.P.C. yet he has been...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-19-2004
Reported in : III(2004)ACC810; AIR2005Raj124; RLW2004(4)Raj2074
A.C. Goyal, J.1. This first appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1987 whereby learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kota, dismissed the civil suit No. 50/1983.2. The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiffs filed a suit on 2nd April 1983, for recovery of Rs. 18,500/- with the averments that in compliance of the orders of the plaintiffs, M/s Bhatia Stones Company, Ramganjmandi, district kota, booked polished stones worth Rs. 990.81 with the defendant Railway, vide Railway Receipt No. 334787 on 7.4.1980. The delivery of the goods was to be given to the plaintiffs at Bombay, but the same were not delivered by the defendants. The plaintiffs informed the defendants vide letters dated 1.6.1980 and 17.7.1980 and thereafter served a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on 25.8.1980 vide registered post, which was received but with no result. The plaintiffs prayed for decree of the suit amount inclusive of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. (3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-20-2004
Reported in : RLW2005(1)Raj389
Harbans Lal, J.1. These writ petitions, which have been filed by way of public interest litigation, highlight issues of grave environmental and ecological degradation due to large scale illegal, un-authorised, un-scientific and un-systematic mining activities being undertaken in violation of the provisions of various enactments, rules framed and notifications issued thereunder, and the orders of the Supreme Court and this court. Some of the petitioners have made a grievance with regard to the operation of the stone crushers and use of explosive substances for winning the minerals from the mines on the ground that they are causing air and nose pollution. Since these writ petitions pertain to and address the common issues, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.2. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7544/03 has been filed by one Ashwani Chobisa, who is a practicing lawyer, in the Rajasthan High Court and claims himself to be a public spirited and keenly interested...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-20-2004
Reported in : 2005ACJ211; 2004WLC(Raj)UC706
Rajesh Balia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is by the insurance company to limit its liability towards third party to indemnify the insured within the precincts of the statutory liability fixed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short 'the Act of 1939'), which was in force at the time the accident in question had taken place.2. This is the second time in this case the insurance company is before this court.3. The accident in question took place on 20.9.1984 resulting in the death of one Prabhu Ram whose legal representatives are respondent Nos. 1 to 9. The respondent No. 10 is driver and the respondent No. 11 is owner of the vehicle.4. The Motor Accidents Claims Case No. 119 of 1984 was lodged by the claimants and by award dated 27.4.1988, a sum of Rs. 1,04,000 was determined as compensation payable to the claimants which the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay to the dependants/legal representatives of the deceased, Prabhu Ram. That part of the award i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-07-2004
Reported in : RLW2004(3)Raj1788; 2004(4)WLC17
Anil Dev Singh, C.J.1. These two appeals are directed against the order dated January 10, 2003 of the learned Single Judge rendered in SB Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 8191/2002 & 8184/2002, to the extent the notification dated July 10, 2002, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the LA Act'), has been upheld.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of these two appeals are as follows:On July 10, 2002, twenty feet wide strip of land on either side of Bhawani Singh Road between Indira Circle and Ram Bagh Circle for the purposes of widening the road was notified by the State under Section 4 of the LA Act. The Notification was published in the Official Gazette. It was also published on July 27, 2002 in two daily newspapers, having circulation in the locality. Besides, on August 29, 2002, the District Collector, Jaipur caused public notice of the substance of the Notification in the locality Pursuant to the Notification under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-24-2004
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1777
B. Prasad, J.1. The present appeal arises out of the decision of learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petitions of the petitioners were dismissed. Petitioners in the writ petitions claimed that inclusion of the area of petitions' premises in the area of Chittorgarh Municipality is not affected by valid Notification. Unless a Notification is validly issued, the area as claimed by the respondents cannot form a part of Chittorgarh Municipality. Since the area cannot form the part of Chittorgarh Municipality, the municipal authorities in Chittorgarh has no right to impose tax in the nature of octroi on the goods which are transported.2. Principal emphasis of the learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal is that learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition has not dealt with the subject in right earnestness. The learned Single Judge has held that area comprised of the appellants' premises, has rightly been included within the boundaries of Chittorgarh Municip...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-24-2004
Reported in : III(2004)ACC616; 2006ACJ1602; RLW2004(4)Raj2483; 2004(3)WLC177
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is against the award dated 6th Oct., 1998 by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nohar allowed the claim petition of the claimants and held the appellant-Insurance Company liable to reimburse the claimed amount.3. The appellant-Insurance Company preferred this appeal raising only dispute about the validity of the licence of the driver. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the driver of the vehicle, at the relevant point of time, was driving the heavy goods vehicle and he had no driving licence to drive the said vehicle. According to learned counsel for the appellant, if the licence of the driver, which was produced by the driver is taken to be valid then that licence was issued to ply the heavy passenger vehicle only. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the accident occurred on 17th Oct., 1993 before coming into force of the amendment of the certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-12-2004
Reported in : AIR2004Raj232; 2004(3)WLC85
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. This Special Appeal, preferred by defendant appellants, arises out of the judgment and decree dated November 9, 1984 of the learned single Judge whereby Civil Regular First Appeal of the plaintiff respondents was allowed and suit instituted by them to enforce the right of pre-emption was decreed.2. Contextual facts depict that suit for pre-emption was filed on October 3, 1960 by plaintiff respondents in the Court of Senior Civil Judge No. 1 Jaipur City. The defendant No. 1 in the written statement denied the existence of the custom of preemption and in the alternative contended that the plaintiff was estopped from claiming pre-emption as he never expressed his wish to purchase the property when the sale in favour of the defendant was brought to their knowledge nor did they make the necessary Talabs which were indispensable for them to perform for claiming the right of preemption. Learned Senior Civil Judge considered the question of Talabs under two parts (1) wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jun-16-2004
Reported in : RLW2004(3)Raj1718; 2004(3)WLC639
K.S. Rathore, J.1. Since in all these writ petitions similar question of law is involved, these writ petitions are decided by this common judgment.2. The petitioners who are selected through RPSC and substantially appointed as Medical Officer/Civil Assistant Surgeon, have filed these present writ petitions seeking writ order or direction that the circular/instruction so issued by the University of Rajasthan for Pre-P.G. Medical Examination 2004 for admission to MD/MS/Diploma Courses by which adhoc/temporary/contract employees have been permitted to appear in the said Examination in the category of 'in-service', be declared illegal. All those candidates who are working on adhoc/temporary/consolidated salary should not be treated as 'inservice' candidates and their merit should be determined along with general candidates.3. Beside the aforesaid prayer the petitioner also challenged the provisions of validity of Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Services Rules of 1963 (for short,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-20-2004
Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj707; 2004(5)WLC397
Prasad, J.1. Heard.2. The appeal arises out of a decision of a suit instituted by the learned on the basis of second default. In this appeal, in fact, to determine whether any substantial question of law arises in this appeal requires a journey through the facts.3. Between landlord and tenant, the present appeal was filed in relation to a second suit based on default. The earlier suit was instituted and after giving benefit of first default, the same was dismissed on 25.10.90. The appeal filed in this regard was also dismissed on 21.01.97 and the Court observed that any deposit made under Section 19-A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950'), until decision to that suit will be counted towards the deposit of rent in that suit. This suit conclusively determined that the tenant had committed first default.4. Second suit was filed on 7.5.91 between the parties. This suit was dismissed, however, in appeal, the matter ...
Tag this Judgment!