Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2008(3)JCR365(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, A.C.J.1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the vires of Section 11 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 as ultra vires and violative of Article 301 read with Article 304(a) of the Constitution of India since the provision is not saved by Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India and further for a direction restraining the respondents from enforcement of the provisions of Section 11 of the Jharkhand Value Added Tax Act. 2005 whereby Entry Tax is liable to be collected on entry of goods mentioned in Schedule III of the said Act. The petitioners further sought a declaration that the entry tax is not compensatory in nature falling under Article 304 of the Constitution of India. As such, the said provision is violative of Article 301 of the Constitution of India.2. The respondents-State filed counter-affidavit taking various defences available in law in support of their case that provisions of the Act is compensatory in nature and, therefore, n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR660
D.K. Sinha, J.1. Instant criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 12.6.2007, passed by Shri Vishal Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whereby and whereunder, discharge petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected with a direction to the petitioners to stand charge under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908.2. Prosecution story, in short, was that the police party, on tip off, headed by a police officer of the rank of D.S.P. intercepted a Mahindra Jeep bearing No. JH 10B 7373 on 05.12.2003 and apprehended the petitioners (1) Pratik Sarkar (2) M.B. Suresh and (3) Jitendra Laxman Thorve. When called upon, all the three petitioners narrated that construction work of G.T. Road was undertaken by their Company H.C.C. and a few days ago, some employees of Hindustan Construction Company were abducted by the terrorist organization M.C.C.I. The abducted persons were rescued on the quick actio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2008(1)JCR542(Jhr)]
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. Since common issues are involved in these three writ petitions, a common order is being passed. In these three writ petitions, Sub-section (ii) of Section 1 of the Jharkhand Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2006 and Sub-section (ii) of Section 1 of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2006 are being challenged by the petitioners seeking for a declaration that Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2000 and Jharkhand Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2006 cannot be extended by the State to the Ranchi District including the schedule area as the Parliament alone can extend the provisions of Part IX A of the Constitution of India to the scheduled areas through legislation as contemplated under Article 243ZC of the Constitution of India.2. Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would urge the following contentions:(i) Part IX of the Constitution of India relates to the Municipalities;(ii) Under Article 243ZC, the provisions of Part IX A of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR458
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J.1. C.B.I initiated the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, before the court below for grant of ad interim order of attachment of the properties detailed in their application and further for making the same absolute as envisaged under Section 5 of the Ordinance, 1944. After passing ad interim order of attachment, the court below initiated proceedings and issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner, on receipt of the notice, appeared before the learned Special Judge, and filed an application for dropping the proceedings initiated against him, as the Ordinance, 1944, is not an existing law. The said application was rejected. Hence, this writ petition has been filed before this Court seeking for quashing of the order dated 29.6.2006.2. The short facts are as follows:In pursuance of the orders passed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, investigation of certain cases relating to Fodder Scam had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2007(1)BLJR831
ORDERM.Y. Eqbal, J.1. Petitioners who are Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have challenged the order dated 13.9.2004 passed by Munsif, Garhwa in Partition Suit No. 22/2003 whereby he in purported exercise of power under Order 8 Rule 6 CPC has disallowed the so called counter claim made by the petitioners in the written statement.2. Plaintiff/respondent No. 1 instituted the aforesaid suit for a preliminary decree in respect of 1/6th share of the properties fully described in Schedule A, B, C, D and E of the plaint.3. Plaintiffs' case inter alia is that he and the defendants are the sons and daughters of late Bateshwar Tiwari who had acquired Schedule-A land. Schedule-B lands were acquired by him through Partition Suit No. 24/1923. Schedule 'C' lands were acquired by the mother of the parties, whereas plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 acquired Schedule-D property. It was alleged that Pucca Well described under Schedule 'F' was constructed by plaintiff from his own earnings. Bateshwar Tiwari ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR1355
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 8.3.2007 passed by Sub-Judge-VII, Deoghar in Title Partition Suit No. 32/2000 whereby he has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner along with proforma respondents-defendants.2. The question that arose for consideration is as to whether daughter being a co-parcener is a necessary party in a suit for partition of ancestral co-parcenary property.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:The plaintiff-respondents Ist set filed petition suit No. 32/2000 for partition of joint family ancestral property. Defendants-respondents No. 2 and 3 contested the suit by filing written statement taking various pleas including non-joinder of necessary parties. The petitioner-defendant filed a petition for adding Savitri Devi, Usha Devi and Mina Devi as defendants in the suit on the ground that they are co-parceners having equal right title and interest over the ancestral pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2004(1)JCR651(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition whereby the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Chatra confiscated the seized seventeen bundles Sal Wood, three bags Charcoal, two Iron Axes, one Jack, eleven pieces of tools together with Matador bearing registration No. BR-13P-1135 in exercise of power under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989, the order dated 16.7.1996 as contained in Annexure-4 passed by the District Magistrate, Chatra in appeal against the order of the D.F.O and also the order dated 20.8.2001 as contained in Annexure-5 passed by the Revisional Authority-cum-Secretary Ministry of Forest and Environment Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.2. The sole ground for challenge of the aforesaid orders as has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Beat Officer, who seized the vehicle i.e. Matador and other articles had no power to s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR336; [2008(4)JCR316(Jhr)]
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. Since common question of law arises on the basis of identical facts in all the three writ applications, they are heard and disposed of together by this common order.2. Challenge in these writ petitions is against the initiation of the land acquisition proceeding vide L.A. Case No. 1 of 2006-07 (Annexure-3) in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.3. Petitioners claim themselves to be owners of the various units of land situated within Pundag and other areas and this fact is confirmed by the revenue records of the State Government, wherein the names and identity of the petitioners in respect of their respective area of land, stands mutated and they are in occupation and possession of their respective lands.4. A public interest litigation vide W.P. (PIL) No. 149 of 2003 was filed before thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(3)JCR256(Jhr)]
ORDERS.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the original order dated 10th August, 2001 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO for short), Garhwa in Confiscation Case No. 21/2000; Appellate order dated 25th of February, 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa in Confiscation Appeal No. 19/2001 and the revisional order dated 4th December, 2002 passed by the Secretary, Forest Department, Government of Jharkhand in Revision Case No. (C)-11/2002. In the confiscation case, the Respondent DFO, seized the Truck No. BR-15G-1140, apart from forest produce, which was affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities. 2. The petitioner, who is the owner of the Truck, in question, has challenged the orders on amongst the following grounds : (i) The DFO, Garhwa had no jurisdiction to confiscate the truck, in question, having not delegated with the power. (ii) The notice of confiscation issued to the petitioner and others is not proper, the authority having not disclo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2003(3)JCR195(Jhr)]
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.1. An Encroachment Case No. 01/98 was filed to take steps for eviction of the petitioners under provisions of Section 66A of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989 read with Section 6 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. It was alleged that the petitioners have encroached forest land on Plot No. 11 of Village Chakla, P.S. Ormanjhi, P.S. No. 32, district Ranchi. The complaint petition was filed by the Director, Bhagwan Birsa Jaiwik Udyan, Ranchi.2. M/s. Vinimay Leasing Finance Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, having received a notice vide Memo No. 1910, dated 23rd May, 1998, moved before this Court in CWJC No. 1886/98(R). In the said case, this Court taking into consideration that the petitioner of the said case claimed right and title in respect of the land, in question, and relied on one or other orders passed by the State authorities and the fact that the respondents in their counter affidavit disputed the right and title of petitioner, vide ord...
Tag this Judgment!