Court : Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur
1. In Writ Petition No.8337/2010 the petitioner has questioned the validity of the provisions contained in Rule 1.19(2)(b) and Rule 1.20(16) of M.P. Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2010 Rules') whereas in W.P. No.6321/2010 the petitioner has challenged the validity of Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules. However, in Writ Petition No.9619/2010 though the validity of the rules has not been specifically challenged but the point in issue of this petition is interlinked with the controversy involved in Writ Petition No.8337/2010 and, therefore, this Court vide order dated 17.8.2010 directed the petition to be listed along with Writ Petition No.8337/2010. This is how all the three petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. In Writ Petition No.8337/2010 the petitioner, inter alia, has challenged the validity of Rule 1.19(2)(b) and Rule 1.20(16) of the 2010 Rules. The petitioner has also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR2007MP204
Dipak Misra, J.1. The cardinal and centripodal issue that emanates for consideration in this writ petition is whether a provision providing wearing of protective headgear which is principally meant to protect one from injury, a resultant factor of hazardous happenstance and a chance casualty, should be regarded as an elevated primrose path in a legitimate body polity governed by Rule of Law that forms the bedrock of real welfare society which effectively encompasses and engulfs the constitutional frame-work of should be viewed as a provision inviting the wrath of Article 14 being arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, a transgression and infringement of freedom of movement as enshrined under Article 19 and also destructive of essential conception of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The challenge, quintessentially put, is to the constitutional validity of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity The Act') on the bedrock of the aforesaid three Articles and pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1967MP239
Bhargava, J.1. The petitioner Shri Bhagwati Dhar Bajpai has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Jabalpur University (respondent No. 1), Dr. Dhirendra Verma, Vice-Chancellor of the said University (respondent No. 2). Shri B. L. Pande, Reotor of the said University (respondent No 3), Shri S. C. Seth. Registrar of the said University (respondent No. 4) and Shri V. G. Pathak. Assistant Registrar of the said University (respondent No 5). praying that the ruling given at the meeting of the University Court on 25-1-1967 by the third respondent to the effect that the presentation of the notice by the petitioner to the fifth respondent, Shri V. G. Pathak on 34-1-1967 was not proper as the said notice had not been delivered to the Registrar according to the requirements of Section 18(1) of the Jabalpur University Act (hereinafter called the Act) be quashed The petitioner further seeks a writ of mandamus to be issued to the third respondent who was Chair...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : I(1995)DMC77
A. Pasayat, J.1. Judgment passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Puri in O.S. No. 39/83 of 1986/82 is the subject matter of challenge in both the appeals though on different grounds. The suit was filed by Jagadananda Mishra, appellant in F.A. No. 70 of 1993 purportedly under Sections 13 and 14 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, the 'Act'), praying for dissolution of his marriage with Pravati, appellant. In F.A. No. 245 of 1991, by passing a decree of divorce, on the ground that Pravati was of subnormal state of mind which was incurable in nature. His case synoptically is as follows :He married Pravati on 4-2-1982, according to Hindu customary rites. After marriage he discovered that Pravati was suffering continuously from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that it would not be reasonably expected to live as husband and wife with her. She has incomplete development of mind and was suffering from psychopathic disorder of, mind, and, was possessed intelligence of a thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
1 W.P.2015/2014 Writ Petition No.2015/2014 06.02.2014 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for petitioneRs.Shri S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for State of Madhya Pradesh on advance notice. Heard on admission. Communication dated 30.11.2013 by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Rewa; whereby, the petitioners have been informed as to reasons why they are not eligible for being appointed as Pharmacist (contractual) has been assailed. The petitioners also seek quashment of select list dated 31.07.2013 and for direction to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment as Pharmacist (contractual).Relevant facts in nutshell are that the applications were invited on 26.12.2012 for appointment as Pharmacists, Data Entry Operators and Support Staff on contract basis in National Rural Health Mission from the persons having requisite qualification. The last date for submitting the applications was 15.01.2013. The petitioners though Diploma/Degree in Pharmacy were not registe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(4)MPLJ526
S.L. Kochar, J.1. By this appeal, the appellants have challenged their conviction under Sections 460 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent sentence of R.I. for five years and imprisonment for life respectively passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T. No. 332/95 on 25-9-96.2. The facts of the prosecution case in brief as unfolded before the Trial Court were that on 27-5-95, the deceased Kusumbai had lodged a report at Police Station, Bhat Pachlana against the appellants for abusing and beating her on account of land dispute (Ex. P-22/A). On 31-5-95, she again lodged a report with regard to demanding of copy of the report by the accused/appellants and assaulting her by knife and lathi (Ex. P-23/A). The accused were pressurizing the deceased for compromise and on 17-5-95 when she refused to enter into compromise, the accused abused her. In the intervening night of 17th and 18th July, 1995, at 12 o'clock the deceased Kusumbai was sleeping in the v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1999CriLJ3455
ORDERDipak Misra, J.1. Extinction of one's liberty amounts to crucifixion of one's soul. Because of this feeling a noble soul had demanded 'Give me liberty or give me death'. It is a cherished ideal that echoes the inner desire of every human soul. No one would like to bArticleer it for the entire wealth of the world. The cause of liberty is treated as the cause of the creator. One's freedom, may be that of an accused or a convict can be curtailed in accordance with the terms of procedure established by 'law' but how long that, curtailment should continue as far as an accused is concerned is the seminal question that arises for consideration in this application for obtaining concession of bail-third attempt by the petitioner who has been arraigned as an accused in Crime No. 21/97 instituted for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147 and 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC'). The singular contention is that the delay in disposal of the trial in S.T. No. 86/97 entitles t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
---1--- W.P.No.1882/2014 (PIL) 31.1.2014 Shri Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents/State. Not on Board; taken up upon Mention Memo. Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. None appears for private contesting respondents. Prima facie, we are in agreement with the stand taken by the petitioner and duly supported by the State Government that the members of Respondents No.6 and 7 and members of other Associate Medical Unions, cannot be allowed to resort to strike as per the Code of Ethics and Regulations and, more particularly, because the State Government has already invoked provisions of the Essential Service of Maintenance Act, 1981. We will only remind the said respondents and all medical officers attached to the concerned hospitals and Medical Colleges about the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of T.K.Rangarajan versus Government of Tamil Nadu and ORS.- AIR2003SC3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2003(2)ARBLR553(MP); 2003(1)MPHT205; 2003(2)MPLJ346
ORDERS.P. Khare, J. 1. This is a revision by the M.P. Housing Board (judgment-debtor) against the order by which its objections in the proceedings for enforcement of award under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act') have been rejected. 2. It is not in dispute that the M.P. Housing Board awarded a contract to the respondent/decree-holder on 7-10-1992 for construction of 28 HIG Houses at Kohefiza, Bhopal for Non-Resident-Indians. The contractor was asked to carry out certain works which were not included in the original contract by the Engineer-in-Charge of the work. The contractor as per Clause 13 of the contract was bound to carry out those works. The contractor did those works and completed the construction of the houses. Then arose the dispute for the extra work done by the contractor. 3. Clause 13 of the Contract provides : 'in the event of a dispute the decision of the Deputy Housing Commissioner of the circle shall be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (2009)19VST573(MP)
ORDERS.K. Kulshrestha, J.1. The Division Bench while considering the appeal of the State Government against the Order dated May 4, 2006, passed by the learned single judge in Writ Petition No. 1169 of 2004, has referred the following question for consideration of the larger Bench in view of the cleavage of opinion between decisions rendered by the Full Bench, the Division Bench and the single Bench:Whether coal ash is a part of cinder and covered by the term 'coal' in entry No. 22 in Part V of Schedule II of the Commercial Tax Act or the said commodity would be taxable under entry 39 in Part IV?2. Initially a three-judge Bench was constituted to consider the said question, but the Bench on being apprised that the question also involves the legality of the decision of the Full Bench in Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax , on being requested by the Full Bench of three judges, the honourable Chief Justice has constituted this Bench comprising five judges.3. The appeal befo...
Tag this Judgment!