Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP205; 1961CriLJ114
Krishnan, J. 1. This is an appeal by Purushottam Vijay, Editor of the daily called 'Indore Samachar' from a conviction under Section 500 I. P. C. with a sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- with imprisonment in default for one month. The offending article was a longish editorial on the 3rd August 1955, entitled, 'This delay in the appointment of the I. G. Police,' charging the Government of Madhya Bharat and one of the Ministers, Shri Narsingh Rao Dikshit, of regionalism (Pradeshikata). The case, probably the first in the State of Madhya Bharat, lias been tried under the new Section 198-B of the Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sessions Judge, Indore.2. Actually two complaints were filed and were tried jointly; one in regard to the leading article of 3-8-1955; and the other in regard to a news-item published in the same pacer on the 30th July. However, the appellant has been acquitted of the charge relating to this latter item. In addition to this appeal, there is an application by the State f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP257
Shrivastava, J. 1. This judgment governs the disposal ofanother appeal (First Appeal No. 99 of 1957) inwhich similar questions of law arise for decision.2. The appellant in the, instant case is an adopted son of the Ruler of Nagod. On 7-3-1948, the Ruler granted a cash allowance of Rs. 650/- per month to the appellant for maintenance. The allowance was hereditary. On 1-5-1949 the amount was increased to Rs. 750/-. Later on 28-10-1949 the allowance was reduced to Rs. 530/- per month by the Raj Pramukh for the lifetime of the appellant only. This was confirmed by the President on 24-9-1951, The appellant brought the present suit claiming that the reduction of his allowance was illegal and ultra vires. He claimed arrears for 3 years and 2 months.3. In the connected appeal, the plaintiff is the brother of the Ruler of Kothi. He claimed that an allowance of Rs. 300/- per month was granted to him by the Ruler on 21-12-1947. The allowance was reduced to Rs. 100/- by the State of Vindhya Prade...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : (1962)IILLJ249MP
K.L. Pandey, J.1. This matter comes before me on a difference between Khan, J., and Shivdayal, J.2. The main question is whether Article 311(2) of the Constitution applies to the facts of this case. The petitioner was an employee of the erstwhile Gwalior State which merged on 15 April 1948. The process of integration of services of the various princely States, including Gwalior State, constituting the new State of Madhya Bharat, continued right upto 1 November 1956 when, in pursuance of the provisions of the States Reorganization Act, 1956, the new State of Madhya Pradesh came into existence. By an order of the Director of Education dated 27 December 1955, the petitioner, who was treated to have been a clerk on 15 April 1948, was directed to be Integrated as a head clerk. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed an appeal claiming that, on 15 April 1948, he was working as a camp clerk and was not a mere clerk in the office of the Director of Education. The Government of Madh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP261; [1961(3)FLR54]
Pandey, J.1. The petitioner, who was removed from service, has challenged the various orders passed in regard to him, on the following grounds :(i) The order of suspension dated 24 Sep-tember 1954 operating retrospectively from 30 November 1950 is bad.(ii) The penalty of removal from service is not one of the punishments prescribed by Rule 12 of the Home Guards Rules, 1947, and could not be awarded.(iii) Suspension is one of the punishment enumerated in Rule 12 of the Home Guards-Rules, 1947. The petitioner was in suspension from 30 November 1950 to 11 June 1956. Since the petitioner was already suspended as a measure of punishment, he could not be punished twice for the same fault by removing him from service.(iv) The petitioner's appeal against removal from service was pending before the Governor of Madhya Pradesh on 1 November 1956 when the States were reorganised. Since the matter related to property belonging to the Home Guards Organisation at Nagpur and Kamptee now in the State o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP282
Dixit, C.J.1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a Sugar Company having its registered office at Sehore challenging the constitutionality of the Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953, on the ground that it is repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.2. The petitioner-Company was incorporated in the former Bhopal State. It owns sugarcane farms located in the area which was formerly Bhopal State. In 1953 the quondam Bhopal State which was then a Part-C State, enacted the Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953, 'for the imposition of a tax on agricultural income'. If extended to the whole of the Bhopal State. Section 2 of the Act defines 'agricultural income' as meaning any rent or revenue derived from land which is used for agricultural purposes and either assessed to land revenue or is subject to a local rate assessed and collected by officers of the Government as such, and any income derived from such land by agricultur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1961MP280
Dixit, C.J.1. This is a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Land Acquisition (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1959 (Act No. 5 of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the Act. It came into force on 1st April 1959. By Section 3 of the Act the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in its application to Bhopal area, was amended as follows;(1) After Clause (g) of Section 3 of the Act of 1894 a new clause was added defining 'Bhopal area'. (2) A new section, Section 17A, was inserted in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, giving to the Government the power to issue a direction to the Collector that it is urgently necessary to acquire immediate possession of any building site situated in Bhopal area, and providing that upon the issue of such a direction the provisions of Section 17 would in all respects apply in the case of such site as they apply in the case ot waste or arable land. (3) A new proviso was added to the first clause of Section 23(1). The proviso runs thus: 'Provided that when the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP50
Krishnan, J.1. The petitioner, who had been temporarily appointed as the Secretary, Kendra Panchayat, Makdone, in District Ujjain, was removed from service by the order of the Director, Panchayat and Samaj Sewa, dated 19-10-1957. He addressed the Government what he describes as 'a revision application' and got on 20-2-1959, that is, about a year and a half after the removal, an unfavourable reply, after it, he took some months to obtain certain certified copies and ultimately filed this petition in October 1959. His allegation is that the authority that dismissed him is not the authority that appointed him and, further that it is subordinate; the requirements of Article 311 of the Constitution have not been fulfilled; and again, that in regard to some of the grounds of removal, he had not been called upon or provided an Opportunity to explain or show cause.The questions for decision are, firstly, as a preliminary point, whether a delay of about sixteen months spent in seeking relief in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP59; 1962MPLJ65
Pandey, J. 1. This order shall also govern the Prathat Transport Company (Private) Limited v. The Regional Transport Authority, Bhepal, M. V. no. 67 of 1961, Shri Balwant Regular Motor; Service v. The Regional Transport Authority, Bhopal, M.P. No. 68 of 1961, Messrs. Sajandas and Jivandrai Company v. The Regional Transport Authority, Bhopal M.P, No. 78 of 1961, The Berar Regular Motor Service, Achalput v. The Regional Transport Authority? Bhapal, M. P. No. 79 of 1961, and The Shriram Bus Service (India) Private Ltd. v. The Regional Transport Authority, Indore, M- P. no. 152 of 19.61. 2. These petitions are directed against certain orders passed by the Transport Authorities of the new State of Madhya Pradesh. They were heard together because the. common question involved in all these cases is whether the Regional Transport Authorities of Bhopal and Indore, as constituted after the commencoment at the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, were bound to entertain applications for the renewal o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1964MP114; 1963MPLJ20
Pandey, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionis directed against the dismissal of the petitioner fromservice as a result of a departmental enquiry which washeld against him.2. Before 1st November 1956, the petitioner was a Sub-Inspector of Police serving at Sironj in the state or Rajas than. As a consequence of Reorganisation of states, the Sironi region became a part of the new State of Mannya Pradesh and the services of the petitioner were allotrea to that State. In the year 1960, a departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner on the following charge.'That the petitioner had accepted Rs. 20/- each as illegal gratification from Ganpat son of Doongaji, Rupe, son. of Bhairao and Nathu son of Kesar, all residents of village Mowdia, Police Station Agar, on 10-5-1960 under the Pretext that all these three persons have stolen Batassas the departmental enquiry was conducted by Shri Balmukund paliwal, Deputy Superintendent of ponce, who submittea his report dated 11...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1963MP216
Krishnan, J.1. The petitioner who had been working as Sub-inspector of Police has come to this Court from the order ofthe Inspector General of Police dated 27-5-1958. He has alleged irregularities out of which 3 have been pressed.(i) In the circumstances to be set out presently he argues that he was really an officer under the control of the Government of the State of Rajasthan and as such could not have been dismissed by the inspector General of Police in the State of Madhya Pradesh. (ii) The inquiring officer Deputy Superintendent ot Police Afaq Hussain was prejudiced against him, being, in fact, the officer who had at the first instance asked the Circle Inspector to make a preliminary inquiry. and (iii) His prayer for personal hearing at the punishment stage was not granted. Accordingly, the petitioner has asked under Article 226, a writ or direction by this Court setting aside of the order of 'dismissal and his reinstatement in service. 2. Delay. The petitioner was dismissed on 27-...
Tag this Judgment!