Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mizoram university act 2000 schedule i schedule Court: allahabad Page 1 of about 3 results (0.046 seconds)

Smt. Kesari Devi W/O Shri Gulab Singh, Chairman, Zila Panchayat Vs. St ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3563; 2005(3)ESC2209

..... proved against the petitioner under the provisions of section 29 of the uttar pradesh kshettra panchayats and zila panchayats adhiniyam, 1961 (hereinafter called the '1961 act') read with the uttar pradesh kshettra panchayats and zila panchayats (removal of pramukhs, up-pramukhs, adhyakshas and upadhyakshas) enquiry rules, 1997 (hereinafter called the 1997 rules'). ..... incapacitated for performing his duties, the state government, after giving the adhyaksha a reasonable opportunity for explanation may by order remove him from office.'81. section 29(3) of the 1961 act provides that an adhyaksha so removed shall not be eligible for election for the said post for a period of three years from the date of his removal.82 ..... gani lone, : [1980]1scr1177 , the hon'ble supreme court, while considering the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 89 of the j&k; representation of people act, 1957, held that the difference between a mandatory and directory rule is that the former requires strict observance while in the case of latter, substantial compliance of the ..... (3) every complaint and affidavit under this rule as well as any schedule or annexure thereto shall be verified in the manner laid down in the code of civil procedure, 1908 ..... of guidelines known as the uttar pradesh code of practice on access to information act, 2000 ..... , the locus of the university teacher for challenging the appointments made illegally and irregularly, in contravention of the university statute has been recognized ..... .....

Chhatrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : (2003)3UPLBEC2634

..... however, for some reason the meeting was not held and has been scheduled to be held on 22.9.2003, which is being challenged on the ground that it was mandatory for the respondent ..... , 1962 alj 930, the division bench of this court while interpreting the provision of section 46 of the act, 1916, had taken a view that in a procedural matter unless it is shown that prejudice is caused to the party concerned, it should not beinterfered by the writ ..... in the instant case, the learned district collector has over-acted for holding the enquiry regarding the genuineness of signatures of the members on the notice and proposal for the no-confidence motion, which was not warranted at all as the statute does not envisage for ..... bhavnagar university v. ..... the court cannot aid the legislatures defeating phrasing of an act or add or mend, and by construction, make up deficiencies which arc ..... said case, the statute provided theclause (2) of section 87-a of the act, required delivery of the notice by two of the signatories. ..... took note of this fact and examined the rules in the light of the provisions of section 14(4) of the panchayat raj act, observing that if the provisions of rule 33-b(2) is held mandatory, it will run, counter to the provisions of section 14 of the panchayat raj act and thus, it was held to be imperative. ..... the provisions of section 14(4) of the panchayat raj act authorise the government for prescribing the procedure for the removal ..... ; state of mizoram v. ..... : (2000)7scc296 ; dhanajaya .....

Gajraj and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

..... 2008 to march, 2011 1278/1533 tenure holders 87.164% 29.11.2010 amnabad 24.8.2006 12.12.2006 20.7.2007 march, 2008 to september, 2010 75.80% 81% 27.7.2011 khanpur 31.1.2008 30.6.2008 10.10.2008 september 2008 to september 2009 89.6% 90.51% 10.8.2011 biraunda 15.12.1999 22.4.2000 28.7.2000 and 11.10.2002 february 2002 to march, 2009 51/80 tenure holders 97% 9.1.2009 chuharpur khadar 21.6.2003 7.8.2003 4.9.2004 october, 2003 to december, 2008 100% 100% 18.3.2005 badalpur 20.6.2007 18.6.2008 18.7.2008 july 2008 to november 2008 86% 80.86% ..... public notice on dated april 18,2008 the governor is pleased to declare under section 6 of the said act that he is satisfied that the land mentioned in the schedule below is needed for a public purpose, namely planned industrial development in district gautam budh nagar through greater noida industrial development authority and under section 7of the said act direct the collector of gautam budh nagar to take order for the acquisition of the said land. 2. ..... pleaded that although more than 4 years have elapsed but nothing has been done on the spot and instead of using the land for industrial purpose, the same has been sold to purvanchal university, paras nath developers, niti shree developers, unitech developers and ansal group. ..... in the exercise of that discretion is the delay made by the aggrieved party in seeking this special remedy and what excuse there is for it.....it is not easy nor is it desirable to lay down any rule for universal application .....