Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988(2)WLN203
1. this petition arises under extraordinary circumstances and is based on allegations of deep intricacies suspected rivalries, intolerance of disloyalty on jejure affairs, at the highest elter of judicial functionaries in the state. it contains allegations as to how the registrar of high court appointed by one chief justice becomes an eye sore of other judges with whom he does not toe in line or does not fulfil their wishes.2. the case of the petitioner is that he was a practising lawyer at jodhpur when he was offered an appointment to the rajasthan higher judicial service and he joined on november 21, 1977 as additional district & sessions judge, udaipur. he was confirmed in the month of november, 1979 after the completion of probation period. he was appointed as registrar of rajasthan high court in the month of november, 1983 by the then chief justice shri p.k. benerjee. shri p.k. banerjee retired on september 30, 1985 and the petitioner remained posted as registrar until october 10, 1985.3. the petitioner has further alleged that from a perusal of his annual confidential reports it would be revealed that he was an officer of outstanding ability and unquestionable integrity. how ever, to his surprise he was served with a communication dated august 16, 1986 whereby certain adverse remarks for the year 1985 were communicated to him. against this communication dated august 16, 1986 the petitioner submitted a representation dated september 1, 1986 vide ex. 1. while the said .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1985(2)WLN539
suresh chandra agrawal, j.1. in this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner, sitaram somani, is challenging the legality of his detention under order (annexure g) dated 4th june, 1985 passed under section 3(1) of the conservation of foreign exchange and prevention of smuggling activities act, 1974 (here in after referred to as 'the act').2. the petitioner is a resident of house no. 834, churuko-ka-rasta, chaura rasta, jaipur. on 1st january, 1985, the officers of the customs department of the government of india searched one shri omprakash soni and his scooter outside the house of the petitioner and during the course of the said search a bag was recovered and in the said bag 8 biscuits of gold of foreign origin were found which were seized. thereafter the customs officers made a search of the house of the petitioner on the same day and during the course of the said search 36 gold biscuits of foreign origin and 12100 u.s. dollars were recovered. the petitioner was arrested on 1st january 1985 and his statement was also recorded on that day. by order dated 17th january 1985, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail and in pursuance of the said order the petitioner was released on bail on 19th january, 1985. on 4th june, 1985 an order (annexure g) was passed for the detention of the petitioner under the provisions of the act. in the said order it has been stated that with; respect to the petitioner, the state government was satisfied that with view to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000(3)WLC755; 2001(1)WLN707
orderbalia, j.(1). these three appeals raises common questions, in similar facts and circumstances, about the chargeability of tax under rajasthan motor vehicles taxation act, 1951 in respect of vehicles plying in rajasthan as tourist coaches having authorisation certificates issued under the motor vehicles (all india permit for tourist transport operators) rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules of 1993) framed under the motor vehicles act, 1988, hence are heard and decided togetherspecial appeal (writ) no. 219/2000:(2). the petitioner-appellant is an approved tourist transport operator under the rules of 1993. it holds permit in respect of vehicles in question from the state transport authority, gujarat state, ahmedabad. it holds an all india tourist permit under the rules of 1993 which have been framed for giving effect to provisions of sec. 88(9) of the motor vehicles act, 1988 (a central enactment) that is for providing issue of authorisation certificate in the case of any tourist coach by a state transport authority of issuing state without requiring counter signatures of corresponding state transport authority or regional transport authority of the state or states through which the tourist coach operates and charging of fees for such authorisation. these rules are primarily to minimise the procedural requirement of operating tourist inter-state transport. any vehicle which is used or kept for use of public roads within the slate of rajasthan and is subject .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1993WLN(UC)344
rajendra saxena, j.1. the petitioner through this writ petition has challenged the selection & appointment of shri m.s. grewal (respondent no. 4) on the post of lecturer in hindi department of s.g.n. khalsa college, sri ganganagar (respondent no. 2) and prayed that the same be quashed and that she be appointed as lecturer in place of respondent no. 1.2. succinctly stated the admitted facts of this case are that s.g.n. khalsa college, sri ganganagar is a public institution getting 90% aid from the state government under the grant in aid rules, 1963. it is affiliated to the ajmer university and governed by the provisions made for the affiliated colleges in the ajmer university act, statute & ordinance. the managing committee, s.g.n. khalsa college, sri ganganagar (respondent no. 3) through its advertisements published in the daily tribune, chandigarh edition dated 9.9.1988 and in rajasthan patrika, bikaner edition dated 23.2.1988 invited applications for one post of lecturer in the hindi department of respondent no. 2, wherein it was mentioned that qualification and grade will be an per u.g.c. norms and that preference will be given to m. phil. or ph. d. candidates. as per norms of the university grant commission the requirements and qualifications prescribed are as under:recruitment to the posts of lecturers, readers and professors in universities and colleges shall be on the basis of all india advertisement and selection. the minimum qualifications required for appointment to .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2005Raj310; 2005(4)WLC115
orderprakash tatia, j.1. heard petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent.2. the petitioner submitted an application for his enrollment as an advocate before the bar council of rajasthan in the year 1986 precisely on 25-1-1986. according to petitioner, the petitioner's application has not been decided by the bar council of rajasthan till the year 2003, therefore, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition and is seeking direction against the respondent bar council of rajasthan to enroll the petitioner as an advocate and action of the bar council of rajasthan for delaying timely consideration of petitioner's case be deprecated and further corfipensation be awarded to the petitioner.3. according to petitioner he submitted application for enrollment in the year 1986 and petitioner was waiting for any communication from bar council of rajasthan, but his application was neither rejected nor he was enrolled as an advocate, then petitioner contacted secretary, bar council of rajasthan several times, but every time, the secretary of the bar council of rajasthan told that petitioner's case file is not traceable. it will be worthwhile to mention here that the petitioner did not mention any date or even year when he contacted the secretary, bar council of rajasthan for this purpose and straightway in the writ petition stated 'that the petitioner recently sent a letter dated 28th july, 2003 to the secretary, bar council of rajasthan (annex. 1)'. according to petitioner .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1990WLN(UC)395
milap chandra, j.1. these 22 similar writ petitions have been filed for quashing the decision annexure 2 of the mines (group ii) department, government of rajasthan, jaipur dated march 25,1989 by which it decided to withdraw the working permission given in the years 1983 and 1984 to rajasthan state mineral development corporation (in short rsmdc) to undertake mining of marbles in the areas of rajsamand, granted mining lease in relaxation of the rajasthan minor minceral concession rules, 1986 (hereinafter to be called the 1986 rules) to (1) m/s international mineral industries limited (10 plots), (2) m/s mewar marbles limited (10 plots), (3) m/s saxeria marbles ltd. (5 plots) (4) m/s nirmal marbles ltd. (5 plots) and m/s aditya mining limited (5 plots) (one of them impleaded as respondent no. 4 (hereinafter to be called as private respondents) who have earlier commenced the mining operation on the allotment of these plots by the rsmdc and to group the remaining 146 vacant plots in the delineated area in blocks 5 plots each and to allot them to the khatedars of the land if they surrender their khatedari rights and to entrepreneurs. it has also been prayed that the state of rajasthan, director, mines and mining engineer (respondents no. 1, 2 and 3) be directed to dispose of the applications received by them in pursuance of the gazette notification annexure 1 dated november 19, 1981. on the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the cases being similar were taken .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR2002Raj33; 2001(3)WLC199; 2001(3)WLN632
lakshmanan, c.j. (1). the petitioners in the instant writ petition are the practicing advocates at jodhpur. they filed the writ petition with the followingprayers:-'it is, therefore, prayed that a writ, direction or order or in the nature of mandamus be issued and respondents be directed to advertise the post and appointments of advocate general, additional advocategeneral, government advocates, panel lawyers etc. to deal with cases of state of rajasthan in high court and various other courts in rajasthan and selections be made.that all persons holding these posts at present be held ab initio void'.(2). according to the writ petitioners, the appointments to the post of advocate general, government advocates, public prosecutors and panel lawyers are made in a very arbitrary manner simply on likes and dislikes theory and that few lawyers got monopoly in representing the state. according to the petitioners, india being a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, there must be equal distribution of work and equal opportunity to seek work and compete. it is also their case that at present there is no policy guide lines for distributing the work of state litigation and to provide the state with the legal opinion and that the present policy of the government of appointments of advocate general, government advocates and public prosecutors etc. is wholly illegal and void since these appointments are made on the recommendation of various political workers, office bearers and on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992(2)WLC618; 1992(2)WLN185
j.r. chopra, j.1. this special appeal under section 18 of the rajasthan high court ordinance, 1949 is directed against the judgment dated december 2, 1991 passed by a learned single judge of this court, which was modified on 16.12.1991 in s.b. civil review petition no. 77 of 1991, whereby the learned single judge has accepted by writ petition filed by the petitioner respondent no. 1 shri khem 'chand sharma and following directions were issued to non-petitioner-appellant:(i) to grant an ordinary time scale of rs. 5100-150-5700-200-6300 to all rhjs officers w.e.f. 13.8.1987.(ii) to grant a selection scale of rs. 5900-2-6700 to rhjs officers w.e.f. 01/9.1988.(iii) to grant supertime scale of rs. 7300-7600 to seven officers of the rhjs from amongst those who are already in selection scale w.e.f. 1.1.1992 and post them as district judges at five divisional headquarters other than jaipur and two at jaipur: one for jaipur city and another for jaipur district.according to the non-petitioner-appellant, the judgment of the learned single judge is without jurisdiction. the learned single judge has transgressed the powers conferred upon the high court under article 226 of the constitution and has thereby erred in giving directions to the executive. it has been contended that the grant of pay scales to the members of any service is governed by the rajasthan civil services (revised pay scales) rules, 1989 and the earlier rules made by his excellency the governor of rajasthan under proviso .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1992(1)WLC107; 1991WLN(UC)516
g.s. singhvi, j.1. question which arises for determination in this writ petition is as to whether a person appointed to rajasthan administrative service can be kept on probation for over a decade and as to whether he can be deprived of seniority, promotion, pay fixation ect. because the order of confirmation has not been passed by the competent authority.2. petitioner, who is physically (orthopaedically) handicapped, joined government service as a senior teacher. in the year 1976, the rpsc advertised vacancies in rajasthan administrative service which were to be filed in accordance with the provisions of the rajasthan administrative service (emergency recruitment) rules, 1976 (leteron changed to 1977). the petitioner appeared in the competitive examination held by the rpsc in july-august, 1977. the petitioner claimed that he is entitled to be considered for selection/appointment in terms of the rajasthan employment of the physically handicapped rules,1976. neither the state government nor the rpsc acceded to his request. he, therefore, filed writ petition no.507/1978. the writ petition was allowed by a learned single judge of the high court vide his judgment dated 6.10.79. the respondent, state of rajasthan filed an appeal before the division bench. the division bench special appeal no. 149/81 state of rajasthan v. suraj prasad chaturvedi and another was dismissed on 8.11.85. according to the petitioner, although before the division bench the appellant's attempted to raise .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1991(2)WLN15
j.r. chopra, j.1. this writ petition is initially filed by the petitioner against the state of rajasthan. the chief engineer public works department rajasthan jaipur and shri j.k. soni on 6.1.1987 alongwith number of annexures and affidavits.2. a reply to the show cause notice was filed by the respondent no. 3 on 30.3.87 alongwith certain annexures. on behalf of respondent no. 1 state of rajasthan, a reply was filed on 13.7.87. the petitioner filed separate rejoinders alongwith certain documents to the replies filed by respondent nos. 1 and 3 on 7.10.87. a reply to the rejoinder was filed by respondent no. 3 on 21.10.87 and to that, a further rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 8.11.87 alongwith certain documents. the respondents thereafter filed a rejoinder to the reply on 13.11.87. an additional affidavit was also filed by respondent no. 3 shri j.k. soni on 17.11.87. a rejoinder to the reply of respondent nos. 1 and 2 was filed by the petitioner on 3.2.88 and a reply to the rejoinder to the reply to the writ petition was again filed by the respondents on 12.8.88. to it, a further rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 1.11.88 and a reply to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner in reply to the writ petition was again filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 on 12.4.1989. thereafter it appears that shri j.k. soni and shri s.c. purohit were promoted as executive engineers and, therefore, an application for amendment of the writ petition was filed. a reply to the .....
Tag this Judgment!