Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2001(1)AWC1; (2001)1UPLBEC3
G. P. Mathur, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (for short P.U.C.L.) praying that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the incident which occurred on May 18, 2000 in which women were subjected to inhuman treatment and lathi charge by the police at Dehradun and for commanding the State of U. P. to hold disciplinary enquiry against the erring officers and to punish them in accordance with law and also for a direction to respondents to pay compensation to the victims of police atrocities.2. The petitioner (P.U.C.L.) claims that it is an organisation which is dedicated to upholding of human right, civil liberties and democratic rights. According to the petitioner, an organisation known as Uttarakhand Mahila Manch (hereinafter referred to as Mahila Manch) used to stage regular 'dharnas' in the Court campus of Dehradun in connection with their demand of separate Ut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. The only question which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the Board of Revenue, U.P. could hear and decide the revisions filed by the appellant after creation of the State of Uttranchal (renamed as Uttrakhand) by the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for short "the Reorganisation Act").3. One Sanjay Ghai had purchased bhumidhari land from various tenure holders in the name of Golden Forest India Limited and its sister concerns, namely, Indian Peace Foundation Trust, Mani Majra, Chandigarh, Golden Forest India Limited, Golden Agro Forest Limited and Golden Forest Distributors Limited. Tehsildar, Dehradun, submitted report dated 12.08.1997 to Assistant Collector 1st Class-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate (for short "the Assistant Collector") with the finding that the purchases made in the name of the respondents were violative of the restriction contained in Section 154 (1) of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. Whether the Uttarakhand High Court could ordain promotion of respondent No.1 Umakant Joshi to the post of General Manager with effect from 16.11.1989, i.e., prior to formation of the State of Uttaranchal (now known as the State of Uttarakhand) with the direction that he shall be considered for promotion to the higher posts with effect from the dates persons junior to him were promoted is the question which arises for consideration in these appeals, one of which has been filed by the State of Uttarakhand and the Director of Industries, Dehradun and the other two have been filed by Sudhir Chandra Nautiyal (hereinafter described as, Appellant No.1) and Surendra Singh Rawat (hereinafter described as, Appellant No.2) respectively against order dated 4.6.2010 passed by the Division Bench of that High Court in Writ Petition No.324 of 2008.2. The service profile of Appellant No.1:2.1 On being selected by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short, the Commission)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2001CriLJ946
ORDERKrishna Kumar, J.1. The applicant is challaned in case crime No. RC (E)/98 BS & FC/DLI under Section 120B read with Section 411/467/468/471/420 IPC.2. At the earliest, it may be stated that the investigation of this case is being done by the Central Bureau of Investigation. There is no dispute that the cause of action arose at Ghaziabad. It may also be noted that a special Court has been established at Dehradun for deciding the cases investigated by the C.B.I. for some of the districts of western Uttar Pradesh. This case is also being investigated by C.B.I. and the bail application of the applicant was rejected by the special Court situated at Dehradun.3. The applicant moved the bail application, after rejection of his bail application by the special Court C.B. at Dehradun, in this Court. The question arises whether this Court has now got jurisdiction to decide this bail application. Admittedly, the bail application was moved in this Court on 13-11-2000 while the Uttar Pradesh Reo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Civil Appeal No. 800 of 2005 was filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of the District Magistrate refusing to grant lease to the appellant as well the Policy dated 17.10.2002 of the State of Uttaranchal whereby the State created monopoly in respect of mining of minor minerals.2. Civil Appeal NO. 678 of 2005 was filed by Maya Ram against the final judgment and order dated 3.12.2003 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal in W.P. No. 258(M/B) of 2003 vide which the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed.3. Civil Appeal No. 679 of 2005 was filed by one Yograj Singh against the judgment and order dated 3.12.2003 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal in Writ Petition No. 70(M/B) of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.4. The respondents in all the appeals are one and the same. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 800 of 2005...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2001(4)AWC3045
G.P. Mathur, J.1. The petitioner, an advocate, practising in Allahabad High Court, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying that (a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued declaring Section 35(2) of the U. P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, as ultra vires of the Constitution, and (b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued declaring the power of the Chief Justice under Section 35 (2) of the Act to be judicial in nature and further that the Chief Justice should exercise the power of grant of certificate after hearing the parties who invoke such jurisdiction and after recording reasons and that too only in exceptional cases.2. The Parliament enacted the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (Act No. 29 of 2000) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to provide for reorganistion of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh and for matters connected therewith. The Act cameinto force on August 25, 2000 and the 'appointed d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Reported in : AIR2004Utr7; 2004(1)AWC915(UHC)
P.C. Verma, Actg. C.J.1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorarl quashing the order dated 10-4-2003, contained in Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition, passed by the Director General, Medical Education and Training, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow cancelling the admission of the petitioner in M.B.B.S. course in King George Medical College, Lucknow with a further prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to let the petitioner continue the study in M.B.B.S., course in King George Medical College, Lucknow.2. The facts and circumstances under which the impugned order cancelling the admission of the petitioner was passed are that under the Xth schedule to U. P. Reorganisation Act, 2000, 55 seats were allotted for admission in various Medical Colleges of Uttar Pradesh to the residents of Uttaranchal. The Bundelkhund University. Jhansi was entrusted to conduct the entrance examinat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIIIAD(SC)165; AIR1999SC166; 1999(1)BLJR255; JT1998(7)SC478; 1998(6)SCALE71; (1999)1SCC705; [1998]Supp2SCR583
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. The river Ganga has been changing its course over a period of years and a dispute has arisen in regard to a large tract of land on the borders of the State of UP and State of Bihar as to whether this land is to be treated as part of the State of Bihar or the State of Uttar Pradesh.2. The appeal has arisen out of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10266 of 1986 filed by six persons (appellants) claiming to be the old residents of village Hansnagar, UP as it stood at the time of survey of 1981- 83. The Union of India, the State of U.P. and the State of Bihar were impleaded as respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The Board of Revenue, UP and the Record Officer, Ballia (UP) were impleaded as respondents Nos. 4 and 5. The appellants sought a writ of mandamus restraining the Record Officer, Ballia, UP from carrying on survey and record operations in regard to village Hansnagar, UP otherwise than on the basis that it was always a part of the State of UP and on the basis that it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009(121)FLR816]; JT2009(6)SC463; 2009(6)SCALE277; (2009)7SCC647; 2009(5)LC2201(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation and/ or application of various circular letters issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh which have been adopted by the State of Uttarakhand after it was formed in terms of the U.P. State Reorganisation Act is in question in these appeals.3. Two government companies being M/s. Teletronix Ltd. and Kumaon Television Ltd. were the subsidiary companies of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. The employees of the said government companies were retrenched. The State of Uttar Pradesh took a policy decision to appoint the employees of the said government companies. For the said purpose, it framed rules purported to be in exercise of its power under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, known as the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government of Public Corporations in Government Services Rules, 1991 (for short 'the Rules').4. The term 'retrenched employee' is defined in Rule 2(c) of the Rules as under:(c) 'ret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4062; JT2003(5)SC393; 2003(5)SCALE73; (2003)9SCC336; 2003(1)SLJ122(SC); (2003)3UPLBEC2002
Shivaraj V. Patil J.1. Delay condoned in SLP (C) No. 10363/2003 (CC 1629/2003).2. Leave granted in all the SLPs.3. These appeals are by the State of Uttaranchal assailing the common judgment and order dated 6th November, 2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttaranchal.4. Resolution of the dispute in these appeals depends on the answer to the question whether the selection made by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, prior to formation of State of Uttaranchal, is binding on the State of Uttaranchal so as to appoint selected candidates to the services in the State of Uttaranchal having due regard to Article 323(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 78(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000.5. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) published advertisement inviting applications for 544 posts of J.E. Civil/Technical (507 Civil + 37 Technical). The result of selection was published on 4.1.2000. The UPPSC sent its recommendations to the U.P....
Tag this Judgment!