Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Sep-02-2008
Reported in : [2008(4)JCR519(Jhr)]
..... ).7. being aggrieved by the order of re-transfer, the petitioner applied for supply of the documents relating to his transfer from dumka to ramgarh under the right to information act and the petitioner was supplied the copies of the note sheets as contained in annexure-9 to the writ petition.8. mr. anil kumar sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Jan-21-2008
Reported in : [2008(1)JCR595(Jhr)]
..... case may be, for giving evidence.(2) where an order under sub-section (1) is made by a magistrate of the second class, it shall not be forwarded to, or acted upon by, the officer in charge of the prison unless it is countersigned by the chief judicial magistrate to whom such magistrate is subordinate.(3) every order submitted for countersigning .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Feb-19-2008
Reported in : [2008(2)JCR12(Jhr)]
..... the petitioner was given promotion to the junior selection grade by notification no. 4655 dated 24.12.2005, the state of jharkhand was created under the provisions of bihar reorganisation act. 2000. obviously after filing her explanation, from 1996 to 2000 there was no further action against the petitioner by the government of bihar. the impugned memo of charge has been ..... 15.6.1989. her first posting was as b.d.o., khunti in november 1990.5. after creation of the state of jharkhand under the provisions of the bihar reorganisation act, 2000 she was allocated jharkhand cadre. the petitioner was given promotion to the junior selection grade w.e.f 24.12.2005 and was promoted to the cadre of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Feb-18-2008
Reported in : [2008(2)JCR358(Jhr)]
..... of oral hearing, the said opportunity cannot be sought as a matter of right in addition to right of representation.5. admittedly, there is no provision in the act for giving personal hearing to the chairman before issuing order of removal from the post of chairman. in the show-cause notice, the reason for his removal was categorically ..... of the show-cause which amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. learned single judge after considering the entire facts of the case and relevant provisions of the act came to the conclusion that show-cause notice was given to the petitioner-appellant stating his involvement in the criminal cases which affected the functioning of the board. ..... is also involved in another criminal case being khunti p.s. case no. 130 of 2006 registered under sections 302/120b/34, ipc and 27 of the arms act. the petitioner-appellant was also arrested in connection with the said case on 21.12.2006 and remanded to judicial custody and was released on bail on 12.1 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Apr-02-2008
Reported in : [2008(2)JCR523(Jhr)]
..... have consistently held that a person aged below 18 years on the date of alleged occurrence should be tried under the provisions of juvenile justice (care and protection of children) act, 2000. in pratap singh's case the point has been set at rest which date should be deciding factor to treat the accused as a juvenile.5. this fact is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Apr-10-2008
Reported in : [2008(3)JCR40(Jhr)]
ORDERR.K. Merathia, J.1. Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that on the request of respondent No. 4, who happens to be the own brother of the petitioner, the Electricity Board has threatened disconnection of the electric connection being D-39C/D-4197, in the premises of the petitioner.2. Mr. Prashant Pallav, appearing for respondent No. 4 (R-4) submitted that the said electrical connection stands in the name of R-4, who is the owner of the premises in question, and he has got every right to surrender the said connection, as R-4 wants to make construction as per the sanctioned plan and without disconnection of the electric line, he is not in a position to make any construction. He further submitted that respondent No. 4 was prosecuted on the ground that he made construction in violation of the sanctioned map. He further submitted that R-4 is in part possession of the premises.3. In reply, Mr. S.K. Sinha disputed that R-4 is in part possession. He submitted th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Apr-02-2008
Reported in : [2008(3)JCR81(Jhr)]
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Rana Singh under Section 341, Cr.PC against the order dated 10.8.2007 passed by AJC-XI, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 1/2007 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 168/2001.2. Before coming to the merit of the present appeal, the admitted facts on record are relevant for proper appreciation of the merit of the appeal.3. The appellant Rana Singh is facing trial under Section 302, IPC registered as Sessions Trial No. 168/2001. PW 9, Renu Kumari was examined by the prosecution on 19.5.2003. After this on 18.6.2004 co-accused Munna Rai @ Shatrughan Rai filed a petition that said Renu Kumari was actually Surekha Kumari and she may be prosecuted for giving false evidence. When the trial Court denied to entertain such petition, Cr. Appeal No. 1761/2004 was preferred before this Court, which was disposed of with direction to make enquiry and proceed in accordance with law. The trial Court accordingly con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Apr-10-2008
Reported in : [2008(3)JCR313(Jhr)]
..... as excise superintendent, munger-cum-lak-hisarai-cum-jamui-cum-shekhpura.3. the state of jharkhand was created by virtue of the provisions of the bihar reorganization act, 2000. there was cadre bifurcation in all the departments of the government. the petitioner was given jharkhand cadre. a notification to that effect was issued by ..... of excise inspector. such posting amounts to change of the petitioner's service condition which is prohibited under the provisions of section 73 of the bihar reorganization act. the respondents had assured that regular promotion to the post of excise superintendent along with other persons shall be considered shortly, but in the meantime he ..... though in the context of a deputy superintendent of police, has held that in view of the provisions of sections 72 and 73 of the bihar reorganization act, service condition of an employee after allocation of cadre to any state cannot be altered to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the central government .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Feb-12-2008
Reported in : [2008(4)JCR382(Jhr)]
ORDERNarendra Nath Tiwari, J.1. On 21.11.2007 when the case was taken up for hearing under the heading 'For Admission', the petitioner informed the Court that in spite of earlier order for payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner which was not paid since the month of December, 2006, one Samrendra Kishore Shrivastava, Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Dhanbad did not pay anything to the petitioner.2. The petitioner was allowed to implead the said Executive Engineer by name. A notice to show cause was also issued to him. When the case was again taken up on 17.12.2007, it was informed that in spite of service of notice, the said Executive Engineer neither appeared nor filed any reply to the show cause. He was given further opportunity to file reply and was also asked to appear in person on the next date.3. Today, Samrendra Kishore Shrivastava. Executive Engineer, Road Construction Division, Dhanbad is present before this Court. Show cause reply has also been filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Feb-21-2008
Reported in : II(2008)DMC273; [2008(2)JCR44(Jhr)]
ORDERD.G.R. Patnaik, J.1. This revision application has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 7.8.2006. passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court. Ranchi in Maintenance Case No. 66 of 2005, whereby the petitioner, who was the opposite party in the aforesaid case was directed to pay Maintenance Allowance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month to the applicant/opposite party No. 2, herein.2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.3. It may be mentioned here that though notice was served upon the opposite party No. 2, as per the office report but she has neither appeared nor has instructed any lawyer to represent him.4. Nevertheless, the hearing of this case has been taken up in presence of the learned Counsel for the respondent-State.5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order, submits that the learned Court below while passing the order of maintenance, failed to consider the fact that the applicant/opposite party No. 2 has willfully wit...
Tag this Judgment!