Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
1. The issue involved in all these writ petitions is that whether the petitioners on being selected are entitled to be appointed on the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Transmission)/Assistant Electrical Engineer (General)/Assistant Engineer (I.T.) in the establishment of the Electricity Board. 2. The facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are that the respondents-Electricity Board issued an advertisement bearing No. 01/08 on 20.9.2008 calling for applications from the eligible candidates for appointment on the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Transmission) -Code A-1/Assistant Electrical Engineer (General)-Code A-2/Assistant Engineer (I.T.) Code A-3 and Assistant Executive Engineer (Transmission) Code A-4. The eligibility, which was prescribed for appointment on the post of Code A-1 and A-2, is that a candidate coming under the general category should have passed examination in Electrical Engineering with 65% marks whereas it was fixed as 60% for the candidates belon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2006(3)JCR96(Jhr)]
D.K. Sinha, J.1. The petitioner Dharmendra Kumar @ Anil Kumar has preferred this petition under Section 482, Cr PC for setting aside the order impugned dated 17.8.2003 passed by Shri M. Mahto, Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C., Ranch! in Sessions Trial No. 544/02 at the fag end of the trial when the judgment was to be pronounced.2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order impugned was passed on the date when it was fixed for the delivery of the judgment after conclusion of the trial. After examination of the prosecution witnesses the accused persons including the petitioner were examined under Section 313, Cr PC and after entering into the defence three witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the defence.3. The brief fact of the case related to Hatia P.S. Case No. 84/02 corresponding to G.R. No. 1065/2002 was that the informant Kameshwar Prasad Singh had brought about the case for the offence under Sections 366/363/376, IPC against the petitione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2001(49)BLJR1624
S.J. Mukhopadhya, J.In these cases, the dispute raised relating to calculation of fuel surcharge, as circulated by the Bihar State Electricity Board (the Board), vide Circulars, as contained in letter No. 345 dated 11th July. 2000 and letter No. 428 dated 16th August, 2000.2. The fuel surcharge fixed, vide aforesaid letters are provisional and interim, in nature, the question of method of calculation and fixation of rate of fuel surcharge of the period is pending before the Supreme Court.3. The validity of levy of fuel surcharge was initially challenged and was upheld by the Patna High Court as well as by the Supreme Court in Bihar 440 Volts Vidyut Upbhokta Sangh v. The Chairman, B.S.E.B.. reported in (1997) 11 SCC 380.Subsequently, a dispute was raised relating to method of calculation and the fixation of rate of fuel surcharge, which was heard and finally decided by the Patna High Court in Pulak Enterprises v. Bihar State Electricity Board and others. reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 552.Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2001(49)BLJR1757
Deoki Nandan Prasad, J. 1. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the sole petitioner for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 3.4.1999 in connection with Ken-duadih PS Case No. 104 of 1998 corresponding to GR Case No. 2469 of 1998 in which cognizance was taken by the Special Judge (EC Act), Dhanbad, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2. The brief case of the prosecution as stated that the informant party raided the shop premises of the petitioner on 15.7.1998. The stock of the articles was verified and no document was produced at the relevant time accordingly, seizure list was prepared. It is alleged that the Rice, Wheat, Sugar Dal and Mustard Oil are said to have been recovered from the shop premises of the petitioner. Accordingly, the First Information Report was lodged. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted at the very outset that the petitioner has got no co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2007(4)JCR136(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this interlocutory application, the applicant-Electrosteel Castings Limited has prayed for its addition as a respondent in the writ petition. It has been stated that the State Government has decided to grant mining lease in favour of the applicant and has forwarded its application to the Central Government for approval.The writ petitioner has challenged the process of the lease, in question, in which the decision has been taken in favour of the applicant and as such, the applicant is the interested party in the matter and its presence is necessary for proper and effective decision on the Issues involved in the writ petition.Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, as well as the respondents have not disputed the said position and contention of the applicant.Considering the above, this interlocutory application is allowed. The applicant M/s. Electrosteel Castings Ltd. is permitted to intervene and is added as respondent No. 6 in the writ peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2007(4)JCR120(Jhr)]
Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have made the following prayers : (i) for declaring the provisions of Section 8 of the Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Panchayat Act') ultra vires, illegal and beyond the legislative competence of the State of Jharkhand, being contrary to the provisions contained in Part-IX of the Constitution of India; (ii) for declaring Rule 5(Ga) of Jharkhand Gram Sabha (Gathan, Baithak Ki Parkriya Ewam Kamkaj Ka Sanchalan) Niyamawali, 2003 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Rule 2003') ultra vires and beyond the competence and jurisdiction of the State Government; and (iii) for quashing Letter No. 266 dated 14th February, 2006 addressed to all the Deputy Commissioners, whereby guideline has been issued for conducting the meeting of Gram Sabha in non-scheduled areas, providing for elections of persons to preside over the meetings and to act as a Pradhan in the Gram Sabha, being contrary to the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2007(4)JCR349(Jhr)]
R.K. Merathia, J.1. Heard the parties.2. The contention of petitioner's association is that its members, who have been working as deed writers for more than ten years, should be granted license without appearing in the examination, in terms of Section 68B(2) of the Registration (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1991 (the Act for short) and Rule 7 of Bihar Deed Writers Licensing Rules, 1996 (the Rule for short).3. To examine such contention, it is necessary to look into the relevant provisions as under:68-A Prohibition of unlicensed person. (1) No parson who is not licensed us provided under Section 68-B, shall engage himself in the profession of document-writer and document drawn up and signed by a person who does not hold a license shall not be accepted for registration by the Registration Officers;68.B Grant of license to document- writers.-(1) The Registrar of District or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf may grant a license, to be valid in one sub-district or one district in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2007(4)JCR232(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this writ application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9.3.2007 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, Hazaribagh under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (shortly the Act) whereby and where under the case of the petitioner has been transferred from the Income Tax Officer Ward 1 (2), Hazaribagh to Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CC 3 New Delhi.2. Petitioner's case is that his main business is manufacturing and selling of cement under the name and style of 'Sheo Shakti Cement Industries' having its head office at Kolkata and factory at Demotand, Hazaribagh where the petitioner has to stay for looking after day to day business affairs. The petitioner is also the Managing Director of M/s. Orbit Industries Ltd. and M/s. Lido Commercial Company Ltd. having registered office at Kolkata and assets at Kolkata also. Petitioner's further case is that he has to look after his family business in Benga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : [2008(1)JCR451(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. More than 10,000 families who are the members of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other communities were dispossessed from their agricultural lands 45-50 years back under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act when their lands were acquired in the year 1959-1962 for the purpose of construction of 4th Steel Plant at Bokaro for erection of Iron and Steel, ancillary works and industries and on the said land Bokaro Steel Plant of Steel Authority of India was established and possession of the said land was given by the State to the Bokaro Steel Plant in 1964. Unfortunate part is that those raiyats and land losers have still not been paid heir rightful and legitimate compensation amount so enhanced by the Land Acquisition Judge because of the fact that the State of Bihar, now Jharkhand have challenged those awards passed by the Land Acquisition Judge by filing these appeals before this Court which are pending for the last 16 years.2. About 46 appeals and 10,312 appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Reported in : 2008CriLJ1550; [2008(1)JCR491(Jhr)]
ORDERAmareshwar Sahay, J.1. In all the three writ applications common question is involved and, as such, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The petitioner in WPS No. 3461 of 2007 namely Pratap Narayan Gope has prayed for quashing of the notification contained in memo No. 2389 dated 22/06/2007 whereby the respondent No. 6 Tribhuwan Nath Upadhyay was asked to function as Public Prosecutor in the Civil Court, jamshedpur, which, which, according to the petitioner, is contrary to the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of Cr. P.C as well as the law laid down by Patna High Court in the case of 'Jititlhari Roy and Ors. v. State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary and Ors. reported in 1994 (2) P.L.J.R, 558' wherein it has been held that no Assistant Public Prosecutor can be appointed on the post of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor unless he resigns from his original post on which he was appointed by the State Government. According to the p...
Tag this Judgment!