Court : Allahabad
1. BY this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 6.7.2012, passed by the D.I.O.S. whereby the no confidence motion passed in the resolution on 30.5.2012 against the petitioners has been accepted, and also the election of Sri Man Mohan Singh respondent no.4 as the new Manager of the Harjinder Nagar Inter College, Harjinder Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar. The facts briefly stated are that there is the college known as Harjinder Nagar Inter College, Harjinder Nagar, District-Kanpur (the College). The college is managed by a Committee of Management under the Scheme of Administration and the petitioner no.2 is the manager of the said Committee of Management. Certain allegations of financial irregularities were made against the petitioner no.2 and a notice was given by the President of the Committee, Sri Balram Singh Obeyrai respondent no. 5, requesting the petitioner no.2 to call a meeting of the office bearers of the Committee of Management. The meeting of the Committe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Devi Prasad Singh, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed under Section 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 (in short VAT Act) after remand of the matter by the Trade Tax Tribunal, Lucknow. The impugned assessment order imposing tax has been assailed pointing out the jurisdictional error claiming transaction to be Inter-State sales. 2. In this bunch of writ petitions, common question of law and facts are involved and the same assessment order has been challenged, hence with the consent of the parties' counsel, arguments were heard and now decided by common judgment. Writ petition No. 6281 of 2010 is treated as leading writ petition to adjudicate the controversy. 3. Keeping in view lengthy argument advanced by the parties' counsel, we are adjudicating the dispute under the following heads: (I) Facts (II) Maintainability of Writ Petition (III) Constitutional and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3482; 2005(2)ESC1252
Yatindra Singh, J.1. The main question involved in these writ petitions relates to the interpretation and scope of section 29(5) of the UP Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (the Act) and deals with the considerations/factors governing discretion of the Registrar while appointing an Administrator or the Committee of Administrators under section 29(5)(b) of the Act. These points arises as the appointments of private persons as Administrators and in the committee of Administrators under section 29(5)(b) of the Act are challenged in these writ petitions.THE FACTS2. A co-operative society {section 2(f) of the Act} means a co-operative society registered under the Act. Chapter III of the Act deals with 'MEMBERS OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND THEIR RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES'. Section 17 of this Chapter explains who can be members of a co-operative society. It shows that not only an individual (natural person) can be member of a co-operative society but State government, or Central Government, or f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2004(2)AWC959
Sunil Ambwani, J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd., a public sector company, and Jay Shree Tyres and Rubber Products as well as Sri R. P. Verma, a share holder in Jay Shree Tea and Industries Ltd., to declare Section 6W of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as constitutionally bad and invalid, violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to enforce the provisions of Section 6W of the Act against the petitioners. The prayer No. 3 is for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated 26.2.1987 published on 5.3.1987, by the Industrial Tribunal-I, Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 4 of 1987 (between Jay Shree Tyres and Rubber Products and its workmen), and also the order of the State Government dated 29.9.1986 passed under Section 6W of the Act.2. The writ petition was heard and allowed, along with other connected petitions, by this Court on 28.3.1990. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2003)1UPLBEC1
s.k. sen, c.j.1. the facts, inter alia, before the division bench, in short compass, are that vijay behari srivastava, the writ petitioner was appointed as secretary in the u.p. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (2002)2UPLBEC1327
Anjani Kumar, J.1. These groups of Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the common questions of law and facts are involved and since all these writ petitions raises common questions, they are being heard together and are decided by the common judgment. Learned Counsel argued treating Writ Petition No. 37124 of 2001 to be leading writ petition in which counter-affidavit, rejoinder affidavit, supplementary affidavit, supplementary counter and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. All the learned Counsel for petitioner a well as learned Standing Counsel have made the statement that no further affidavits are required in each writ petition. The petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :-'(A) To, issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari call the record of the case and advertisement dated 14.8.2001 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and quash the advertisement dated 14.8.2001 to the exten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(1)AWC37; (2000)1UPLBEC722
A. K. Yog, J.1. This case as fresh has come up by nomination by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.2. Respondent No. 2, appeared as 'Caveator' and has filed counter-affidavit in the writ petition. Petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit to it.3. All the respondents are represented. Standing counsel does not propose to file counter-affidavit as the question raised by the petitioner is based on interpretation of statutory provisions.4. Writ petition is, therefore, decided finally at admission stage.5. The petitioner. Committee of Management. Abdus Salam Muslim Girls Inter College Bhatee Street. Moradabad. is aggrieved against an order dated July 31. 1999 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) whereby the District Inspector of Schools refused to accord approval to the resolution of suspension passed against respondent No. 2 (Md. Ayas)--Head Clerk in the college, on the ground that requisite papers were not submitted within seven days under Section 16G and Regulation 39 (1) and (2) of Chapter III o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2000(1)AWC76; (2000)2UPLBEC1176
A.K. Yog, J.1. Sheo Raj Prasad, petitioner, while working as Lekhpal in the District Fatehpur, was compulsorily retired vide order dated 12th January, 1990 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) on the basis of assessment of his relevant past service record, by a duly constituted screening Committee constituted under relevant Government Order (vide Rule 56, fundamental rules contained in financial hand book-Part iI (extract thereof has been filed as C.A. 1 to the counter-affidavit).2. In para 3 of the writ petition. It is admitted that a first information report was lodged by Tehsildar, Bindki regarding interpolation in revenue records in his custody and final report was submitted as the investigating Officer could not fix the responsibility with respect to person who had committed said interpolation. (Copy of First information Report has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition). Vide order dated 17th November, 1982 S.D.M. Bindki, though revoked suspension but found petitioner respons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1992All88
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. 1. These writ petitions call in question the validity and legality of the sale by Government of U. P. of 51% shares in a wholly Government owned public sector Corporation, U. P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. (UPSCCL) in favour of Dalmia Industries (Respondent No. 5 in W. P. No. 10607 of 1991).2. In the State of U. P., there are only three major cement factories, besides a fewsmall units. All the three major units are in the public sector. They are Churk Cement Factory, Dala Cement Factory and Kajaar-hat-Chunar Cement Factory. In 1972, the State Government formed a Government Company known as U. P. State Cement Corporation Ltd. (UPSCCL), which came to own these factories. It appears that two of these factories were started even prior to the incorporation of the Corporation, while the third was installed and commissioned by the Corporation itself.3. The total installed capacity of the three plants is 25.60 lakhs M. T. per annum. Viewed in terms of their insta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1991All129; (1991)1UPLBEC355
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid four petitions and they are interconnected both on facts and arise out of either consequential orders or for the purpose of enforcement of the right depending on facts of earlier writ petitions. Writ Petitions Nos. 7009 of 1986, 15224 of 1986 and 1944 of 1987 have been admitted and writ no, 8013 of 1987 was not admitted and was directed to be listed for admission along with the aforesaid writ petitions. Since common argument was made in all these petitions both by the petitioner and the respondents and counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties they are being disposed of finally in accordance with the Rules of Court by means of this common judgment.2. The petitioner-firm obtained a Gas Agency from M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. under scheduled caste quota and an agreement was executed for the same between Messrs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and the petitioner on 21st March, 1983. The petitione...
Tag this Judgment!