Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1963)GLR945
Shelat, C.J. 1. These three orders have been challenged on various grounds which, as aforesaid, have been taken by the respective petitioners in their petitions. As aforesaid, in Special Civil Application No. 827 of 1961, the petitioner therein has raised certain additional grounds which we will deal separately. The first ground amongst the several grounds common to these three petitions is that the three impugned orders have been passed mala fide and are therefore, invalid. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 604 of 1961 has alleged (1) that the order impugned by him is mala fide because it has been passed to circumvent the orders passed in his favour in the aforesaid suit filed by him against the respondent, (2) to bring pressure against him for obtaining the said order from the civil Court, (3) that the impugned order was passed at a time when the aforesaid suit had become ripe for hearing, and (4) to deprive him of the possible fruits of the result of the aforesaid s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1965)ILLJ71Kant
ORDERHegde, J. 1. Common question of law arise in these petitions. But for convenience sake we shall first take up for consideration Writ Petition No. 1653 of 1963. The results of the other two writ petitions depend on the result of this writ petition. 2. Writ petition No. 1653 of 1963. - The petitioner herein were serving in the Revenue Department in the State of Madras till 1 November 1956. They were allotted to the new State of Mysore on the date of the State reorganization. Even before the State reorganization they had been temporarily appointed as deputy tahsildars, but by the date of the States reorganization they had been reverted to a lower rank for want of posts of deputy tahsildars. Petitioner 1 was again appointed as deputy tahsildar on 12 December 1957, petitioner 2 and 3 on 1 April 1958 and petitioner 4 on 25 July, 1958. Ever since then, they have continuously acted as deputy tahsildars till the filing of this petition. Respondents 7 and 8, prior to the reorganization of S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1970MP132; 1969MPLJ751
Pandey, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to call up and quash by certiorari three orders: (i) one dated 15 May 1963 by which the State Government provisionally absorbed the petitioner as from 1 November 1956, on a post borne on the cadre of Overseers Electrical/Mechanical for purposes of the Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959; (ii) another dated 1 April, 1964 by which the petitioner was intimated that the Central Government had rejected his representation dated 29 December, 1961 against the provisional combined gradation list and (iii) the third dated 4 June, 1965 by which the gradation list was made final as published in the M. P. Rajpatra Extraordinary dated 18 June, 1965. The petitioner has further claimed a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ or order directing that the post formerly held by him in the erstwhile State of Bhopal be equated with posts higher than those held by Overseers and his pay scale be re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1961Kant37; AIR1961Mys37; ILR1959KAR829; (1960)IILLJ574Kant
ORDERA.R. Somnath Ayyar, J.1. The petitioner is a Deputy Chief Engineer in the service of the State of Mysore. On 25 March 1959, the Government of Mysore placed him under suspension pending enquiry into four charges framed against him. In this writ petition, the petitioner asks that that order should be quashed. 2. The impugned order was made in the following circumstances. 3. The petitioner entered the service of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad in the year 1926, as a Probationary Assistant Engineer. In June 1949 by which time he had become an Executive Engineer, he was in charge of a project known as the Khasapur Project in the Bandsura Project Division of that State. In June 1951 he was called upon to explain some irregularities stated have been committed by him in the performance of his official duties. On 16 March 1955, a notice was issued to him to show cause why he should not be proceeded against in respect of four charges which were enumerated in the enclosure to that notice. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1966KAR418; (1969)IILLJ171Kant
ORDERHegde, J. 1. The petitioner, who is a Circle Inspector of Police, challenges in this writ petition, under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the validity of the rule in the Mysore Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1965, prescribing that for being promoted as a Deputy Superintendent of Police from the cadre of Circle Inspectors, the officer concerned should not have completed 52 years at the time the question of his promotion comes up for consideration. Further he seeks a writ of mandamus from this Court to respondent 1, directing it to promote him as Deputy Superintendent of Police from the date his immediate junior was promoted to that post. 2. Prior to 1 November, 1956, the petitioner was serving in the former State of Coorg. As a result of the Reorganization of States, he was allotted to the new State of Mysore. In his parent State, there was no age restriction in the matter of promotion of an Inspector of Police as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. After Reorganization of States...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant49; AIR1966Mys49
(1) These appeals are heard together since they involve common questions of law. In order to understand the said questions, it is necessary to state the relevant facts.(2) I shall first state the necessary facts relating to Second Appeal No. 243/1960. The appellants are defendants. Respondent-plaintiff, since deceased and now represented by her legal representative, instituted O.S. No. 174/52 in the Court of the Principal District Munsiff, Kollegal, for a declaration of her ownership to and possession of items 1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. She also claimed past and future mesne profits and prayed that a charge be created over items 3 to 6 of the suit schedule properties for payment of the same. The value of the suit for purposes of jurisdiction was stated to be Rs. 1,221-4-0.(3) Defendants denied her claim. The learned District Munsiff decreed the suit on 18-8-1954.(4) The defendants preferred an appeal in the Court of the District Judge at Coimbatore. When the appeal was pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1967P& H98
ORDERS.K. Kapur, J.1. By this petition the petitioner has asked for quashing of the order dated 31st October, 1961 (Annexure XI to the petition) passed by the Government of India and communicated to the petitioner by Shri S.B. Khare, Under Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner is at present working as Principal, Government Post Graduate Basic Training College, Raipur, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Before the reorganisation of States by the States Reorganisation Act on 1-11-1956 he was employed as Principal of the Teachers' Training College (L.T.) at Dewas, which is stated to be the only institution of this kind in the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat. The State of Madhya Bharat merged in the new State of Madhya Pradesh from 1-11-1956 under the States Reorganisation Act. It is alleged that the State of Madhya Pradesh published a provisional integration list (Annexure I to the petition) setting out the principles formulated for being observed, as far as may be, in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1690; (1964)66BOMLR698; [1964(9)FLR324]; (1964)IILLJ639SC; 1965MhLJ73(SC); [1964]7SCR639
Das Gupta, J.1. A short point arises for consideration in this appeal. But to understand how the point arises it is necessary to embark on a somewhat lengthy statement of facts. 2. Three Road Transport Corporations established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 were operating in the States of Bombay, Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad in 1956 when the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 was enacted. These three corporations were known as the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation, the Provincial Transport Service and the State Transport Marathewada respectively. As a result of the reorganisation of the States under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 the former State of Bombay lost certain of its territories to the newly formed State of Mysore and some areas to the State of Rajasthan. On the other hand, the State of Bombay gained the Marathewada from the State of Hyderabad and the Vidharbha area from the State of Madhya Pradesh and certain other areas from the then existing State of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1965KAR282; (1965)1MysLJ392
ORDERHombe Gowda, C.J. 1. In these two petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the two petitioners have challenged the legality of the order passed by the State fixing the seniority of respondent 2 above them in the revised second provisional inter-State seniority list and have sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the Government order dated 20 July, 1963 bearing No. GAD 20 IGS 62 placing respondent 2 above C. L. Subba Rao, serial No. 1 in the provisional inter-State seniority list of Assistant Engineers, by which it is done. 2. In order to appreciate the arguments addressed before us, it is necessary to set out a few facts which are almost undisputed. E. V. Seshadri, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1455 of 1963, was appointed as a surveyor in the Public Works Department of the erstwhile State of Mysore in 1941. He was selected as a probationary Assistant Engineer in 1945 and was appointed as an Assi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(4)MPHT403
ORDERBhawani Singh, C.J.1. The petitioner has challenged the creation of State of Chhattisgarh by the M.P. State Reorganisation Act, 2000, (for brevity 'Reorganisation Act, 2000'). His submission is that creation of new State be stayed and the Reorganisation Act, 2000, quashed.2. The State of Madhya Pradesh was created by the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, from November 1, 1956. It is the largest State in India and it comprised the old districts of Central Provinces excluding districts of Berar, old State of Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Sironj Sub-Division of Vidisha District, initially forming part of State of Rajasthan. It was created by the Union of India mainly on the report of State Reorganisation Commission, 1955, Chapter VII of which deals specifically with subject 'Smaller States v. Larger States'. The Home Minister Late Shri Vallabh Bhai Patel got abolished the small States and favoured compact bigger States on the basis of norms fixed by the State Reorganisation Commis...
Tag this Judgment!