Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Aug-30-1971
Reported in : AIR1973MP116; 1972MPLJ837
Dude, J.1. By this petition and the connected petitions (Misc. Petition No. 41 of 1969 and Misc. Petition No. 42 of 1969) tinder Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the vires of Madhya Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Debt Relief Regulations, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) and the Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) and prayed for a direction that the order of Debt Relief Court constituted under the enactments and the order in revision by the Collector be quashed.2. The other petitions (Misc. Peti-tion No. 41 of 1969 (Vallabhdas and 3 Ors. v. Dhanna and 3 Ors.) and Misc. Petition No. 42 of 1969 (Vallabhdas and 3 Ors. v. Navalsingh and 3 Ors.) raise substantially the same points and shall be disposed of by this order.3. The petitioners who are moneylenders advanced some money to Su-kanya who is admittedly a member of the Scheduled Tribe and is residing in a Scheduled area. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-29-1971
Reported in : AIR1971MP136
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the rejection of the petitioner's nomination paper which was filed to contest the election to the Gram Panchavat Budhara under the M. P. Panchayats Act, 1662, hereinafter called 'the Act'.2. The election of Panchas to the Gram Panchayat Budhara was to be held on May 20, 1970. The petitioner Mate Prasad and respondent No. 3, Munshi Singh, submitted nomination papers. On the date of scrutiny of nomination papers, an objection was raised by the respondent No. 2. Udaisingh, to the effect that the petitioner owed more than Rs. 400/-in connection with the construction work which meant that he had not repaid the amount up to that date. The amount had been given to him in the capacity of Sarpanch of the Gram Panchavat. The petitioner contended that the amount was not due in respect of panchavat tax. However the Nirwachan Adhikari (Election Officer) respondent No. 1 accepted the objection and rejected the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-05-1971
Reported in : 1971MPLJ688; [1971]28STC427(MP)
ORDERBishambhar Dayal, C.J. 1. This is a petition by Sardar Mahinder Singh who was doing the work of repairing and building bodies on customers' chassis. He had not registered himself as a dealer under a bona fide belief that he was not a dealer at all and that he was merely doing contract works. Proceedings were, however, started against the petitioner for assessment under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act for periods from 1st January, 1963, to 31st December, 1963, and 1st January, 1964, to 3rd November, 1966. The petitioner contested his liability as a dealer. Ultimately, his plea was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer and in his appeal against the first period it was held that he was liable to be registered as a dealer. This appeal was decided by order dated 29th August, 1966, which was served on the petitioner on 8th September, 1966. On this date, according to the petitioner, the matter having been finally decided, he applied for registration on 1st November, 1966, and was soon regist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-11-1971
Reported in : AIR1971MP170; 1971MPLJ498
Pandey, J. 1. This writ petition and two others, namely, Smt. Durga Devi v. Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior, (Misc. Petn. No. 229 of 1969) and Rameshwar Dayal v. The Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior (Misc. Petn. No. 250 of 1969), have been placed for disposal before us because certain earlier Division Bench decisions of this Court in regard to the procedure to be adopted for grant of stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) in regard to a new route required reconsideration in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in R. O. Naidu v. Addl. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras, AIR 1969 SC 1130. This order shall dispose of the three petitions.2. The facts giving rise to these three petitions are these. In this case, the respondent 2 Ramgopal, who was an existing operator of a stage carriage on the Katni-Beohari route (92 miles) applied on August 13, 1965 for extension of that route upto Sidhi (another 52 miles), While...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-16-1971
Reported in : AIR1971MP248
Shiv Dayal, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a suitable writ and directions for removal of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 alleging that they have respectively assumed the office of the Mayor and that of the Deputy Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, in contravention of the provisions of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The petitioner is a taxpayer and resides within the Gwalior Municipal Corporation.2. On March 22, 1969, respondent No. 1 was elected the Mayor of the Corporation, after the general election held in the month of January 1969. He was not an elected or selected councillor. By virtue of Section 23 of the Act his term of office was from the date of election until the first meeting in the next following year. He was thus to continue as Mayor upto March 21, 1970.3. The Corporation summoned a meeting to be held on March 20, 1970, for electing the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor 'for the next ensuing year, i.e....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-10-1971
Reported in : AIR1972MP77; 1971MPLJ737
Raina, J. 1. This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The Municipality of Mungaoli is a class III municipality. The Municipal Council Mungaoli was dissolved on 28-9-1967 and non-petitioner No. 3 was appointed as administrator thereof. Subsequently, general elections were held in the year 1970 and non-petitioners 4 to 7 were elected as members of the council from ward Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 9. Petitioners 1 to 5 are the residents of wards 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 respectively and they have filed this petition challenging the election of non-petitioners 4 to 8 on the ground that the electoral rolls were not revised within 6 months of the election as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is urged that the election of the non-petitioners is illegal and liable to be set aside as the electoral rolls were not prepared according to law and the applicants and many others were deprived of their right to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-10-1971
Reported in : AIR1971MP225
Shiv Dayal, J.1. The petitioner Firm challenges the validity of an orderpassed by the State of Madhya Pradesh fixing the minimum percentage of outturn of rice from paddy for the purposes of levy.2. Initially by GSR No. 1405 dated November 24, 1960, the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act No. 10 of 1955) made the Madhya Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1960. In Clause 3 of that Order a licensed Miller was to sell to the Purchase Officer at the price payable under that Order, 25 per cent of the quantity held in stock by him at the commencement of that Order and thereafter, until such time as the Purchase Officer otherwise directs. 100 per cent of the total quantity of rice produced or manufactured by him in his Rice Mill every day. Later on, by GSR. No. 1677, dated November 6, 1967, the Government of India made the Madhya Pradesh Rice Procurement (Levy) Second Amendment Order, 1967, whereby the expression ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-01-1971
Reported in : AIR1972MP17; 1971MPLJ727
Sen, J. 1. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent by the tenant against a judgment of Golwalkar, J. holding that there can be no splitting of tenancy under Section 12 (1) (e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961.2. The facts leading to the appeal are not in dispute and may be shortly stated. The respondents plaintiffs. Shyamsundar and Ved Bhushan, are father and son. They held the property as members of a ioint Hindu family, the demised premises of which forms a part comprising of four rooms on the ground-floor, demarcated in red lines in the plaint map. The same was demised to the appellant-defendant, Shantaram, by the plaintiff No. 1, Shyamsundar, acting as the lessor. During the subsistence of the lease, there was a partition between Shyamsundar and Ved Bhushan. As a result of the partition, two of the rooms in occupation of the defendant-tenant, marked in green lines, have fallen to the share of Shyamsundar, while the other two rooms have been allo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-02-1971
Reported in : 1971MPLJ684; [1971]28STC247(MP)
ORDERBishambhar Dayal, C.J. 1. The order passed in this writ petition (Miscellaneous Petition No. 388 of 1970) shall also govern the disposal of the connected three writ petitions, namely, Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 387 of 1970, 73 of 1970 and 74 of 1970, filed by the same company, M/s. Jiwanrnal Sons Private Limited, against the imposition of penalty under Section 17(3) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. These four writ petitions relate to four different periods. Miscellaneous Petition No. 388 of 1970 relates to the year 1962-63, No. 387 of 1970 relates to the year 1963-64, No. 73 of 1970 relates to the year 1964-65 and No. 74 of 1970 relates to the year 1965-66. Since the material facts which have given rise to the common point in these writ petitions are the same, we are disposing of all the four petitions by one common order, giving the facts of the first case (M.P. No. 388 of 1970) which relates to the year 1962-63. The facts of the remaining three cases are materially...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Apr-05-1971
Reported in : AIR1971MP209; 1971MPLJ594
P.K. Tare, J. 1. The Division Bench has referred this case to a Full Bench for decision of the Writ Petition without framing any specific question for the opinion of the Full Bench. Therefore, we propose to decide the entire matter by resolving the conflict of views as indicated in the order of reference.2. The facts loading to the present reference are as follows: In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a Writ of Certiorari in respect of the orders of the Revenue Courts (Exs. P/l to P/4) holding that the tanks recorded as Khasra Nos. 461 and 542 in village Gorra had vested in the State by virtue of Section 251 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1950.3. Prior to the merger of the Chhattisgarh States into the old Central Provinces, the petitioner was a Gaonthia and a protected Thekedar of village Gorra and his rights were governed by the Raigarh State Wajib-ul-arz. Subsequent to the merger of the Raigarh State into the old Central Prov...
Tag this Judgment!