Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)MPHT186
ORDERS.L. Kochar, J.1. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for quashing the FIR vide Crime No. 44/2005, dated 30-7-2005 registered by Police of Police Station, Brijpur, District Panna (M.P.) against the petitioners and other co-accused persons under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act') for commission of breach of Clauses 5,6 (4), 7 (4), 10 (1), 11 and 12 of the Madhya Pradesh (Khadya Padarth) Sarvajnik Nagarik Poorti Vitran Scheme, 1991, M.P. Food Stuffs (Civil Supply and Distribution) Scheme, 1991 (hereinafter called 'the Scheme of 1991').2. Short resume of the facts necessary for decision are that the Junior Supply Officer, Panna, after due enquiry on 13-12-2003 in presence of SDO (Revenue) and Sub Inspector Shri Khurshid Khan, Police Station, Brajpur along with Panchas inspected the Fair Price Shop of Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Silghara and Diya a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2009MP55
A.K. Patnaik, C.J.1. This is an application filed by the respondent No. 6, Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers, for grant of permission to direct the respondents to register motor cycles sold by manufacturers in the State of Madhya Pradesh.2. The background facts leading to filing of this application are that Writ Petition No. 6969/2006 was filed as Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner stating that a number of road accidents leading to deaths has been taking place in recent years in India calling for concerted and multi-disciplinary preventive and remedial measures. In paragraph 4.30.10 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that for the death due to motor cycles, the State of Madhya Pradesh is responsible because the registering authorities have been registering the motor cycles in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and in particular Section 44 of the Act. In paragraph 5.15 of the writ petition, the petitioner has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(3)MPHT374
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. These two appeals have been preferred under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenging the defensibility and sustainability of the order dated 8-8-2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 8723/2007 and W.P. No. 8726/2007. Be it noted, the learned Single Judge has disposed of both the writ petitions in a composite manner and adverted to the facts in Writ Petition No. 8726/2007. As in Writ Appeal No. 960/2008 the assail is to order passed in Writ Petition No. 8726/2007, for the sake of clarity and convenience, we shall advert to the material facts and grounds urged in the said appeal.2. The appellant is the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 957 admeasuring area 1.58 hectares at Village Morghari, District Khandwa. The said land was diverted by order dated 3-11-2005 under Section 172 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code') for construction of godown. The petitioner has availed a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2009MP110
ORDER1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the Association of Private Professional Technical and Medical Institutions, we are called upon to decide whether a candidate who has taken admission in an institution pursuant to the first phase of counselling can be allowed to participate in the second round of counselling and reopen the allotment made in his favour in the first round of counseling.2. The facts briefly are that for regulatory fees and admissions in Private Professional Institutions in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ke Viniyam Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam 2007 (for short 'the Adhiniyam, 2007') was made by the State Legislature. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 12 of the Adhiniyam, 2007, the State Government made the Admission Rules, 2008 (for short 'the 2008 rules'). In accordance with the 2008 Rules, a common entrance test for candidates intending to take admission in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2009MP52; 2009(1)MPHT139
A.K. Shrivastava, J.1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by defendant No. 1 assailing the judgment and decree dated 14th December, 2001 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Raisen, in Civil Suit No. 17-A/2000 partly decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent No. 1.2. The facts leading to this first appeal are narrated in detail in Paras 2 to 10 of the judgment passed by this Court on 10-4-2007 when this first appeal was decided and allowed in part in terms of Para 25 of the judgment. Thereafter, appellants who are the L.Rs. of defendant No. 1 as well as plaintiff/respondent No. 1 filed review applications which were registered as M.C.C. No. 1393/2007 and M.C.C. No. 1339/2007 respectively. Review application M.C.C. No. 1393/2007 which was filed by legal representatives of defendant No. 1 was in regard to certain typographical errors and accordingly the said review application (M.C.C. No. 1393/2007) was allowed on 8-1-2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(1)MPHT383
ORDERSanjay Yadav, J.1. Challenge in this petition under Article 226/227 of the-Constitution of India is to an order of externment passed by District Magistrate on 2-5-2008 in a Criminal Case No. 3/2007 and the order dated 24-6-2008 by the Divisional Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar whereby the order of externment dated 2-5-2008 has been affirmed. The order of externment has been passed in exercise of power under Section 3 (2) and Sections 5 and 6 of Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (referred to as 'Adhiniyam').2. The brief facts culled out from the pleadings put forth by the petitioner are that the petitioner is a resident of Sukhchain Ward, Tehsil Deori, District Sagar. The petitioner was served a show-cause notice on 2/4-2-2008 under the Adhiniyam as to why an action be not taken against him under the Adhiniyam and be externed from the territorial limits of District Sagar and its surrounding districts. As many as 23 cases were reported to be registered against the pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2008(5)MPHT374
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. In this batch of writ petitions, the assail is to the constitutional validity of Sub-section (4) of Section 1 and Section 1-A of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for brevity 'the 1960 Act') and the notification issued under the said provisions. The said provisions were introduced by M.P. Act No. 16 of 2000 by the Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Sambandh (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2000 with a stipulation that the said provision would come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification, appoint and was brought into force by notification dated 17-5-2006 from the date of publication of the notification. The petitioners have also challenged the notification issued in exercise of power conferred under Sub-section (4) of Section 1 of the 1960 Act by the State Government whereby it has directed that the provisions of the said Act shall not apply to the industries specified in the Schedule to the said notification with a postulate that the said exclusio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(2)MPHT452
ORDERShantanu Kemkar, J.1. The petitioner is working on the post of Sr. Manager in the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (for short 'HUDCO'), a Government of India Enterprises Funded and Controlled by Union of India. He has been transferred by the third respondent vide order dated 20-9-07 (Annexure P-19) from the post of Incharge-RSU, Indore to Regional Office, Chennai for his further posting. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition.2. According to the petitioner, the impugned transfer order is illegal, arbitrary, and is based on malafides. He stated that his transfer from Indore to a distant place like Chennai has been issued by the 3rd respondent, as he raised voice against him as well as many other superior officers for the illegalities committed by them. He further averred that in the last 10 years, he has been transferred six times prior to completion of his normal tenure of five years on every occasion. He stated that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(3)MPHT139
ORDERS.K. Gangele, J.1. Defendants have filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10-1-2005 passed by VIII Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 40-A/2004 affirming the judgment and decree dated 30-4-2004 passed by IX Civil Judge, Class I, Gwalior in Civil Suit No. 62- A/2002.2. The appeal has been admitted vide order dated 8-9-2005 for hearing on the following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff for ejectment against the defendants is not maintainable in view of the fact that partnership firm to whom accommodation was let is not joined as party?(2) Whether the Courts below have erred in passing the decree under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, when plaintiff has failed to prove his need to the suit accommodation objectively?(3) Whether the findings of the Courts below about the bonafide need of the plaintiff is vitiated for non-consideration of the facts, i.e., age of the plaintiff, his past exp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2009(4)MPHT189
S.L. Kochar, J.1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 16-11-2002 passed in S.T. No. 560/2000 by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Alirajpur, District Jhabua (M.P.), whereby convicted the appellants under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to RI for seven years with fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine amount they shall undergo additional SI for one month.2. According to the prosecution case, on 16-3-2000 in the evening at 5:30 p.m., complainant Chhidu (P.W. 1) was sitting at the outskirt of Village Vejada-Sakdi. Complainant returned back after attending 'Bhagoria' festival of their tribal community, at that moment appellants reached over there having 'Falia' and while saying that complainant was behaving like a proudy person and also asked him as to why he was sitting there; they assaulted him by 'Falia' causing injuries on back, right neck and back of the skull. Complainant fell on the ground and after some time his brother ...
Tag this Judgment!