Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2700; 2005(3)WLC80
N.N. Mathur, J.1. The petitioners in the instant public interest litigation claims to be the followers of Pushtimargiya Vaishnava Sampradaya and devotees of temple of Shri Shrinath Ji at Nathdvvara. They seek direction to the respondents for framing of proper and appropriate scheme for regulating arrangement of the Darshan, holding of Festivals, Ceremonies and distribution of Prasad. A further direction has been sought commanding the 2nd respondent i.e. Goswami Shri Rakesh Ji Maharaj to ensure the performance of public and statutory duties.2. Before dealing with the merit of the grievance voiced, it would be convenient to set out briefly the historical, cultural and religious background of the temple and the incidence in relation to the management of the temple.3. The temple of Shrinathji at Nathdwara holds a very high place among the Hindu Temples in this country and is looked upon with great reverence by the Hindus in general and Vaishnava followers of Vallabha in particular. As in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1909; 2005(3)WLC280
V.K. Bali, J.1. By this common order, we propose to dispose of two connected appeals bearing No. 113/2001 and 40/2001 as both the appeals emanate from common impugned order of conviction and sentence dated 11.1.2001 recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. Whereas Appeal No. 113/2001 has been filed by Vinod, his brother Karniram and Urmila wife of Vinod, Appeal No. 40/2001 has been filed by Ramdev, Kishore and Nagendra, who as informed to us by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, are not related to the appellants of Appeal No. 113/2001. All the six accused named above were tried for causing death of Sardara and causing injuries to his wife Kaushalya at 9 p.m. on 25.5.1998. FIR with regard to the incident came to be lodged by Kaushalya examined as PW-1 on 26.5.1998 at 5.30 a.m. While unfolding the narration of events leading to the death of her husband and injuries to herself, she stated that she was residing at Sotwara in the fields in the house made by them there ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj2147; 2005(3)WLC262
V.K. Bali, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Bhorya and his four sons namely Harkesh, Ghisya, Ramji Lal and Moti recorded against them, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa. Whereas Ghisya has been found guilty under Section x IPC substantively and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, others named above have been held guilty for the offence Under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 IPC and convicted likewise. They have been also ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, on in default of the same, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of there months. They have also been convicted under various other sections of the IPC, as detailed below.BhoryaUnder Section 148 IPC - 3 months' rigorous imprisonment.Under Section 452 IPC - 6 months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and default in payment of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.Under Section 325/149 IPC - One year RI and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine to furth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 3(2005)ACC216; 2005WLC(Raj)UC549
J.R. Goyal, J.1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant claimants for enhancement of the compensation against the award dated 15.9.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer in MAC Case No. 43/1992.2. In short the facts of the case are that oh 24.8.1991 at 8.30 p.m. deceased Shankar Lal Nagar was travelling along with other persons in jeep bearing Registration No. RST 7354 from Beawar to Ajmer. Due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver Ugam Singh, it dashed against the stationary truck bearing registration No. RNW 7475, which was parked on the roadside near Kesarpura (Police Station Mangliawas), as a result thereof Shankar Lai and two others died on the spot. Learned Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the jeep driver Ugam Singh, respondent No. 1, and awarded total compensation of Rs. 45,000/- including Rs. 25,000/- on the head of dependency. Aggrieved by this award, dependents of deceased Shankar L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2911; 2005(4)WLC504
R.P. Vyas, J.1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner - a visually handicapped person, praying therein that the impugned order dated 31.12.1997 (Annexure-P/6) may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to take him back on duty with all consequential benefits.2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner is a visually handicapped person, i.e., completely blind, but he is not blind by birth, but he became blind during the course of employment in October November, 1997. the case of the petitioner falls within the definition of Handicapped Person, as per the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities etc.) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1995'). A Certificate to this effect dated 12.11.1997 (Annex.P/1) has also been issued by the Senior Specialist (Eyes) under the Rajasthan Employment of the Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1976').3. The petitioner joined the servi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1678; 2005(3)WLC780
V.K. Bali, J.1. In an occurrence that took place on 29.9.1993 at village Delawas, whereas one person from the side of the complainant party namely Motiram lost his life, 20 others were injured. In the same very occurrence, ten persons from the side of the appellants were injured. The only but significant question that arises for adjudication in the present case is as to whether the appellants caused death of one and injured 20 others in exercise of their right of private defence of person and property or that they constituted unlawful assembly and attacked the complainant party, thus committing various offences for which they were tried and held guilty.2. Prosecution put 40 persons on trial out of whom whereas Laxmi Narayan @ Latoor has been held guilty for an offence Under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life, Ram Swaroop, Narsiram, Gyarsa, Ganga Ram and Punia @ Puniram have been held guilty for offence Under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced likewise. All the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1844; 2005(3)WLC243
V.K. Bali, J.1. Challenge in the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to order dated 6.2.2004 passed by the learned Central Administration Tribunal, Jaipur vide which Original Application No. 495/2003 filed by the petitioner seeking declaration of result of written test held on 12.6.2003 and declaring notification dated 14.8.2003 to be null and void was dismissed.2. Brief facts of the case as projected in the petition reveal that the petitioner being eligible to appear in the examination for selection on the post of Diesel Chargeman (Electrical) submitted his application which was entertained. However, the written test for selection was not conducted and the respondent department readvertised the posts vide notification dated 4.3.2003. It is the case of the petitioner that vide notification mentioned above, reference of earlier notifications dated 21.1.2002 was also given. The copy of the notification has been annexed to the petition as Annex.3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(4)Raj2433; 2005(4)WLC34
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. Civil Original Suit No. 17/1977 (2/1972) filed by the respondent Sohanram for specific performance of the contract for sale of agricultural land in the alternative for refund of Rs. 1500/- with interest was decreed for both the reliefs in the alternative by the learned Munsif, Sardarshahar on 5.10.1978 with a further decree for injunction. The learned District Judge, Churu, in Appeal No. 67/1978 modified the decree by setting aside the relief of injunction but otherwise maintained the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant on 24.8.1982. The present appeal by the legal representatives of the original defendant Bhinvaram was admitted by this Court on 2.2.1983 while formulating the following substantial questions of law:(a) Whether the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the agreement to sale should not be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff did not express his readiness and willingness to perform his part o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1917; 2005(3)WLC443
Prakash Tatia, J.1. The additional affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 is taken on record.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The petitioner is an industrial unit and claiming benefits under the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, 1971 for which petitioner submitted his application in time and before the cut out date 30.12.1988. The petitioner was denied the benefit of the Central Investment Subsidy Scheme, upon which the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1625/1997, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16th July, 1998 and respondents were directed to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of subsidy.4. After the above decision dated 16.7.1998 of this Court, the Commissioner (Industries), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur informed the Addl. Secretary (Industries), Government of India vide letter dated 15.10.2001 stating therein that the petitioner applied for the loan an subsidy benefit in time by sub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2005(3)Raj1970; 2005(3)WLC270
V.K. Bali, J.1. The widow of Ram Niwas, petitioner in the original lis and respondent in the present writ petition, is clamouring for grant of family pension ever since her husband Ram Niwas died on 29.12.1988. She succeeded in obtaining the desired relief when she filed O.A. No. 233/2003 before the C.A.T. as the same was allowed vide order dated 7.4.2003. It is against this order passed by the learned C.A.T. that the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed. Hopefully, the tales of woe of a widow would end today after seventeen years of litigation.2. The bare minimum facts that need necessary mention reveal that Ram Niwas was employed on the post of Helper initially on 8.11.1979 as casual labour. He was granted temporary status w.e.f. 1.1.1983. He was contributing towards provident fund account. Unfortunately, he died on 29.12.1988 while on active service. In the year 1986, list was prepared for screening the casual labour in order to regular...
Tag this Judgment!