Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(4)Raj2865; 2004(2)WLC436
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. This writ petition has been presented in the Registry of this Court on 22.12.2000. The petitioner has primarily challenged impugned orders An-nex.62 dated 4.5.1991 whereby pursuant to a departmental enquiry the Appointing Authority has imposed upon him the penalty of dismissal from service and Annex.64 dated 21.7.1992 whereby the appellate authority maintained the penalty order. On its face, the writ petition suffers from gross delay and, therefore, at the outset this Court called upon the counsel for the petitioner to show sufficient cause why this petition may not be dismissed only on the ground of laches.2. The gruelling narration of the facts leadings to delay in filing the writ petition is that on accrual of the cause of action, after dismissal of his appeal by the appellate authority, the petitioner engaged Shri Vinayak M. Joshi, Advocate and handed over him the file alongwith all relevant material. He also made payment of the full fees and expenses. It i...
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 equa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2298; RLW2009(3)Raj2117
ORDERRaghuvendra S. Rathore, J.1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed against the order dated 14-12-1989 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 1, Alwar, whereby he had rejected the protest petition filed by the petitioner and accepted the Final Report, submitted by the investigation agency in F.I.R. No. 24/1985. Being aggrieved of the said order, the complainant-petitioner preferred a revision petition and the same came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2, Alwar on 2-7-1998.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner had lodged a report on 17-2-1985, at Police Station Malkhera, District Alwar, for the offences under Sections 120-B, 416, 467, 468 and 420, I.P.C. After registration of the report, the police investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that no offence was made out and, as such, they submitted a Final Report before the concerning Court. The petitioner-complainant then filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1991(1)WLN369
N.L. Tibrewal, J.1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the Additional Munisf and Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, by which the applications of the petitioner and of other co-accused persons to drop Criminal proceedings against them for want of sanction Under Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'), were rejected. After being unsuccessful in the revision in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Alwar, the present petition Under Section 482 of the Code has been filed. In the normal course, I would not have entertained this petitioner after the right of revision having been exercised by the petitioner, but the question involved in the matter goes to the root of the case and is jurisdictional one, I propose to decide the same.To appreciate the question of law which calls for consideration, it is necessary to narrate the facts in brief.2. Non-petitioner Tikka Kan Singh filed a complaint on 14.6.82 against the petitioner and three other police cons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : [1994]81CompCas50(Raj)
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. This petition was filed before this court under Section 439(b) of the Companies Act, 1956, on September 15, 1990, with a prayer for winding up the non-petitioner company under Section 433(c) and 433(f) of the 1956 Act and with a further prayer for appointment of the official liquidator as liquidator of the company. Other ancillary prayers have also been made.2. Notice of the petition was ordered to be issued on April 26, 1991. After service of notice none appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner. Therefore, on September 26, 1991, the court ordered advertisement of the petition. On December 20, 1991, it was recorded by the court that in Company Petition No. 6 of 1982, a stay order has been passed by the court in view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985'). The court, therefore, directed that this petition be placed along with Petitions Nos. 6 of 1982 and 8 of 1983. On May 28, 1993, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998(1)WLC566; 1997(2)WLN501
J.C. Verma, J.1. At the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.2. The petitioner Kalulal, working as District Probation & Social Welfare Officer, was charge-sheeted on certain allegations on 18.2.85 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called as 'the Rules of 1958). Copy of charge-sheet is attached as Annex. 5 to the writ petition. After completing certain formalities, an enquiry officer was appointed as required under the rules. A report was submitted by the enquiry officer which was communicated to the petitioner on 4.9.85. In the report, submitted by the enquiry officer, the petitioner was found guilty and, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and against which show cause notice, the petitioner had made a representation. The objection of the petitioner made in the representation was accepted. It was the case of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1564; 2009(1)WLN83
H.R. Panwar, J.1. These three writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are heard and decided together by taking the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5845/2005 as leading case.2. Briefly stated the facts to the extent they are relevant and necessary for the decision of these writ petitions are that the petitioner was appointed temporarily on the post of Teacher Grade-III by order Annexure-P/1 dated 29th September, 1973. However, subsequently, the services of the petitioner came to be confirmed by order Annexure-P/2 dated, 29th November, 1975 w.e.f. 1.11.1975. While in service, the petitioner for visiting abroad as a tourist and in order to meet his brother filed an application for such permission and also sought No Objection Certificate from the respondent Department. For grant of NOC to the petitioner, his application was forwarded vide communication dated 2nd July, 1982 Annexur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1973(6)WLN194
Kan Singh, J.1. The second appeal before me which is by a civilian employee of the Defence Department raises the question whether such an employee can challenge the order of his dismissal from service in a civil court.2. Jeewanpuri was appointed as a 'Lasker' in the grade of 30 and 35 in March, 1952 in Wing No. 3, Indian Air Force Station at Palam by the Commanding Officer of the Wing. In March, 1955 he acquired quasi permanent status In October, 1957 he came to be transferred to the Air Force Flying College, at Jodhpur on a similar post. At Jodhpur he organised a union of class IV civilians and became its Secretary. This Union came to be affiliated with the Indian National Trade Union Congress. On account of his activities the plaintiff came to be served with certain charges, an enquiry was made against him and finally he was visited with the punishment of removal and dismissal from service on the charges framed against him.3. After serving a notice under Section 80 CPC. to the Union ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Order dt:29. 5/2014 1/21 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1127/2013 Gajendra Kumar Patel V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1207/2013 Naresh Pandya V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1204/2013 Ramesh Chandra Chourmar V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1205/2013 Jayendra Kumar Pandya V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1206/2013 Gebee Lal Meghwal V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1211/2013 Smt. Ramila Roat V/s State of Rajasthan and ors.7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1212/2013 Narpat Singh Chouhan V/s State of Rajasthan and ors. Date of Order :::29. h May, 2014 REPORTABLE PRESENT HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioners. Ms.R.R. Kanwar, for the respondents. --- BY THE COU...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR **** :JUDGMENT: Yashpal Singh Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12093/2010 Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of In- dia DATE OF JUDGMENT:19. h August, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Mr. Dipesh Beniwal, legal representative of the petitioner, in person. Mr. V.K. Mathur, Assistant Solicitor General of India for re- spondent No.2, Rajasthan High Court. Mr. Anand Purohit, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Pradhuman Singh, for the respondent State. Reportable BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE LOHRA, J):1. This legal battle was launched at the behest of a compulsorily retired judicial officer for assailing the impugned order dated 31st of March 2010 (An- [2] nex.9), and after his unfortunate demise in Ut- trakhand Gory Tragedy, is pursued by his legal representatives.2. Scorning the checkered history of the case, the brief ...
Tag this Judgment!