Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
(1) With the closure of their stone crushers, with the threat to their right to livelihood, the petitioners, the owners of the stone crushers, have rushed to this Court for protection. Since through these petitions, the petitioners have challenged two orders, both dated 04.02.2010, passed by the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board ('the Board', for short), these petitions are being decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, the facts from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2593/2010, M/s Bahubali Stone Crusher v. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, are being narrated hereinafter.(2) It is the case of the petitioner-firm that it had established an industrial unit for production of grit stone at village Bolkhera, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur. The petitioner-firm was not only duly registered with the Board, but vide order dated 15.05.2004, the Board had granted the consent to operate to the petitioner-firm for its unit. The said consent was valid till 30.04.2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. The case in hand is a chequered story and the prosecution case unfolds a pathetic chilling and sinister phenomenon whereby the life of a person was eliminated from this worldly scene and consigned to the heavenly abode by putting an end to his innocent life simply in a bid to exercise the powers of Police officials misused by them on the people in custody. The appellants before us are four Police officers of the rank of SHO and constables named Raju singh, Rajesh Kailash and Khem singh who have preferred their respective appeals against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2003 passed by learned Special Judge, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Court, Jhalawar in Sessions case No.32/2003 (78/2001, 18/2000 & 4/2000), whereby they were convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/331/348/201 alternatively under Sections 302/331/348/201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and were sentenced as under:- i)For the offence under Section 302/302 read with Section 34 of the IPC with imp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Prakash Tatia, J.1. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 236/1984, following question has been referred to the Larger Bench by the order dated 16.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court headed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and one of us (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prakash Tatia):Whether Hindustan Zinc Limited is 'State' or 'any other authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India ?2. The facts of the case of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 236/1984 are that the petitioner, an employee of the respondent-Company, appointed in the year 1968, faced disciplinary proceedings wherein order of termination of his service was passed on 23.12.1983 (Annex.31) which was challenged by the petitioner by preferring S.B. Writ Petition No. 236/1984 before the single bench of this Court on 11.1.1984. According to the petitioner, the respondent Hindustan Zinc Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is Government of India Enterprise and is an instrumentality o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Govind Mathur, J.1. These appeals are before us being referred by a Division Bench of this Court for reconsideration of the judgment given in Asuram v. Tehsildar, Sanchore reported in AIR 2000 Rajasthan 345.2. To understand the issue under consideration, it may be useful to notice certain relevant statutes and the facts associated.THE RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT, 19553. On 30.3.1949, the State of Rajasthan was formed on integration of several independent Princely States and Chief-ships with varying levels of political, economic and social developments. At the time of formation of State, the Jagirdari system was prevailing over a huge part of available agricultural land and the tenants were not having any security of tenure and fairness of rent. The agriculture being a key factor of economic and national reconstruction, the newly formed State felt it necessary to introduce and accelerate the process of land reforms, thus, on 10.10.1955 a bill to enact the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 was place...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this special appeal, an application has been moved with a prayer that in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 436/2009, Sukhdev v. Prakash Chand and other three special appeals on 16.04.2010, no intra-court appeal shall lie from an order passed by the learned Single Judge while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, this special appeal deserves to be dismissed being not maintainable in view of the above judgment.2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the respondent-applicant that in this special appeal, judgment dated 31.08.2009 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5429/2005, Kartar Singh v. Board of Revenue and Ors., is challenged and said judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of power conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is contended that the learned Single Judge has examined the validit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.1. These intra-court appeals, having been preferred against the common order dated 30.03.2010 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the respective writ petitions and involving similar facts and identical issues, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order.2. The grievance of the appellants in these appeals being against the interim directions as issued by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned and else, the writ petitions being pending, suffice it shall be to take note of the background aspects and the facts so far relevant for the present purpose.3. The writ petitions wherefrom these intra-court appeals arise, have been preferred by the contesting respondents (hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioners) who had been the holders of the licences issued by the Excise Department of the Government of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (the Act) and the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 (the Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2010(2)Raj1847
M.N. Bhandari, J.1. This criminal miscellaneous petition involves following important questions of law:1. In a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') whether evidence of the complainant may be given on affidavit at pre-summoning stage?2. What is the effect of Sections 4 & 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') on Section 145 of the N.I. Act. Whether the provision of Section 145 has overriding effect over the provisions of the Cr.P.C.?2. It is a case where complaint was filed for an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complainant submitted affidavit at pre-summoning stage and thereupon order of cognizance was passed. The petitioner herein filed an application for recalling the order of cognizance on the ground that complainant should have been examined on oath. Application was dismissed vide order dated 1.2.2010 holding that it has been filed only with a view to delay the matter as other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This civil first appeal was initially filed by defendant late Lajpat Rai under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against judgment and decree dated 04.02.1986 passed by Addl. District Judge, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No. 1/81 (36/79), whereby, learned trial Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of contract.2. The above appeal was filed by late Lajpat Rai against plaintiff late Jorawar Singh and, on the date of filing the appeal, both the parties were alive; but, during the pendency of this appeal, both appellant and respondent died. Due to death of original plaintiff- respondent Jorawar Singh on 10.07.1998 his legal representatives were taken on record vide order dated 16.03.1999. Similarly, defendant-appellant Lajpat Rai also died and vide order dated 15.03.1997, legal representatives of defendant-appellant were taken on record. Thereafter, necessary amended cause-title has been filed.3. According to facts of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2010(2)Raj1146
M.N. Bhandari, J.1. By this Criminal Misc. Petition, order dated 26.2.2008 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu has been challenged.2. Before going into the merits of the case, learned Counsel for petitioner was asked to address this Court regarding maintainability of the petition before Permanent Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur.3. learned Counsel for petitioner submits that a case Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') has been initiated at Churu though cheque bearing No. 50158 was issued for Bank of Punjab Limited, Station Road, Jaipur. The complainant deposited cheque in a saving bank account at Churu, but was dishonoured by Bank of Punjab Limited at Jaipur. The cause of action to the complainant, thus, arose at Jaipur. It is stated that even if case is tried at Churu, a petition Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Cr.P.C') can be maintained before the Jaipur Bench as cause of action to the complaina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
1. By way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 28.01.2010 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 1342/2009.2. The petitioner preferred the writ petition aforesaid in challenge to the order dated 11.02.2009 (Annex. 6) issued by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur appointing an Administrator to manage the affairs of Nagaur Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited ('the Sangh') with the submissions that the said Sangh is a registered Co-operative Society under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001'); and as per the minutes dated 18.05.2007, 10 Directors were elected with the petitioner being the Chairman. It was submitted that in the meeting dated 17.08.2007, the said Board of Directors resolved to hold the elections through the Co-operative Election Authority but the elections were not conducted by the respondents; that for not holding of the elections by the respond...
Tag this Judgment!