Uttaranchal Court February 2010 Judgments

Shri Mahendra Lal Jaini (Since Deceased Jinendra Lal Jain, Gyanendra K ...

Court: Uttaranchal

Prafulla C. Pant, J.1. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated 27.10.1983 (copy Annexure -10 to the writ petition), passed by Addl. District Judge (Special Judge, Anti Corruption), Dehradun, whereby said court has allowed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1967. The impugned order appears to have been passed under Section 17 / 18 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners have also challenged vires of U.P. Land Tenures (Regulation of Transfers) (Re-enactment and Validation) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 12 of 1972).2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the papers on record.3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the then Maharaja of Nahan (Sirmour Estate) namely Sir Rajendra Prakash, owned and possessed various properties in District Dehradun, including the land situated in Village Asharori, measuring 1281....

Diwakar Prasad, Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Court: Uttaranchal

Dharam Veer, J. 1. This criminal revision, preferred under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P. C.) is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.7.2000 passed by Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi in Criminal Appeal No. 40/1999, whereby the learned Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal by maintaining the conviction of the revisionists Under Section 385 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as The IPC) but by setting aside the sentence of six months R.I. imposed upon each of the revisionists and maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- each imposed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uttarkashi vide his judgment and order dated 4/12.11.1999 in criminal case No. 607/1998.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available in file.3. In brief, the prosecution case is that on 16.11.1998 PW1 Shiv Prasad lodged a report in police station Kotwali stating therein that on 15.11.1998 at ...

Sri Kedar Datt Bhardwaj Vs. State of Uttarakhand and ors.

Court: Uttaranchal

J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a teacher in 1968. In the year 2002, he was promoted as Principal of Sri Guru Ram Rai Inter College, Nehru Gram, Dehradun. It is not a matter of dispute, that the aforesaid college is a recognized private college, receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government. In the year 2005, the petitioner was awarded the State award for his contribution in the field of education. Based on the aforesaid recognition bestowed on the petitioner, the Governor of Uttarakhand was pleased to grant the petitioner extension of service for a period of two years. During the period of his extension in service, the petitioner was wrongfully granted one increment. By an order dated 30.03.2009, the State Government has chosen to effect recovery from the petitioner, based on the fact, that he was wrongfully granted one increment during the period of his extension in service.2. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, could not...

Pushkar Gorrani Vs. the State

Court: Uttaranchal

Dharam Veer, J. 1. This criminal appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.10.1997 passed by the Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 13 of 1996, State v. Pushkar Gurrani, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant/accused Under Section 307 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as I.P.C.) and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R.I. for one year.2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.3. In brief, the prosecution case is that complainant Hari Om (P.W.5) lodged an FIR stating therein that on 2.10.1995 at about 9 PM, when he was in his duty at District Hospital, he heard noise that Om Prakash has received injury of knife. On hearing this, he rushed on the spot...

Doon Valley Brewers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax and ors.

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: (2010)29VST440(NULL)

1. The solitary question which arises consideration in the present revision petition is whether the revisionist could have raised a question for determination of a disputed issue by invoking Section 57 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the '2005 Act'). So as to determine the veracity of the issue, Section 57 of the 2005 Act is being extracted hereunder:57. Determination of Disputed Questions-(1) If any question arises, otherwise than in a proceeding pending before a court or before an Assessing Authority under Section 25, Section 26 or Section 29, whether, for the purpose of this Act-(a) any person or association of persons, society, club, firm, company, corporation, undertaking or Government Department is a dealer; or(b) any particular thing done to any goods amounts to or results in the manufacture of goods within the meaning of that term; or(c) any transaction is a sale or purchase and, if so, the sale or, as the case may be, the purchase price...

Smt. Kaura Devi W/O Late Govind Prasad Kukreti and anr. Vs. State of U ...

Court: Uttaranchal

Tarun Agarwala, J.1. Heard Mr. Ramji Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.P. Sah, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.2. The Urgency application No. 653 of 2010 is allowed. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this matter is being taken up today for final disposal.3. The petitioner's father died in harness in the year 1989. At that time, the petitioner No. 2 was three years old. Upon reaching the age of 17 years, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds under the dying-in-harness rules. This application was initially entertained and, it is alleged, that medical and police verification was also done but, subsequently the authority returned the application on the ground that the petitioner was still a minor and, therefore, the application of the petitioner could not be considered. Upon reaching the age of majority, the petitioner again applied in the year 2004 for appointment on compassionate grounds. Since,...

Naresh Chandra Jokhmola and 50 ors. and H.C.P. Kushal Singh and ors. V ...

Court: Uttaranchal

Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The moot question for consideration in these special appeals is whether the Uttaranchal Government Servants (Criterion For Recruitment By Promotion) Rules 2004 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 2004) or the Police Act, 1861 is applicable while considering the writ petitioners for promotion. The factual controversy in all these appeals are slightly different and, therefore, it would be appropriate, if the factual background is disclosed in a nutshell.2. The writ petitioners (Thakur Singh and Ors.) in Special Appeal No. 138 of 2006 were working as Sub Inspector in the civil police for the last 22 to 25 years. A notification dated 23.09.2004 was issued by the State Government for promotion to the post of Inspector in the Uttaranchal Police. On 12th December, 2004, a promotion list was published, in which the name of the said writ petitioners were not found. It is alleged that juniors to the writ petitioners were promoted. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners made a r...

Upendra Singh Maniyari Vs. Jagmohan Singh and ors.

Court: Uttaranchal

J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. Jagmohan Singh filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 898 of 2009 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein he sought a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing a first information report dated 15.09.2009, lodged by Upendra Singh Maniyari, on the alleged commission of the offence of abetment to suicide, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The aforesaid first information report was registered as Crime Case No. 97 of 2009 at Police Station Basant Vihar in District Dehradun.2. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 898 of 2009 it was alleged by the aforesaid Jagmohan Singh alias Raj, that his marriage was settled with Sweta alias Ritu, sister of the aforesaid Upendra Singh Maniyari. The engagement ceremony between Jagmohan Singh and Sweta alias Ritu was held on 14.01.2009, whereafter, the parties agreed, that the marriage ceremony would be held on 28.09.2009. On 13/14.09.2009 Sweta alias Ritu consumed poison. She died on 14.09.2009. On 15.09.2009 Upendra S...

State of Uttarakhand and ors. Vs. Km. Kiran Chaudhary D/O Sri J.C. Cha ...

Court: Uttaranchal

Tarun Agarwala, J.1. The present special appeal arises against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28th February, 2006 issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents (now 'appellants' in the special appeal) to consider the case of the petitioner by awarding her quality points as provided under the U.P. Subordinate Educational (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1983).2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that an advertisement was issued by the respondents inviting applications for appointment of Assistant Teachers in various subjects. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher/Mistress in Arts. The results were declared in June, 2003 in which the name of the petitioner did not figure in the select list. The petitioner alleged that candidates obtaining 49.86 quality points marks were found in the select list. According to the petitioner, she had 53.23 quality points marks and, consequen...

Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercia ...

Court: Uttaranchal

Reported in: (2010)29VST265(NULL)

J.S. Khehar, C.J.1. The revision petitioner, i.e. M/s Telecommunication Consultants India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'TCIL'), is a Government of India undertaking, which is controlled by the Ministry of Telecommunications. While the head office of the revision petitioner's business is located in New Delhi, it has a branch office in Dehradun, presently in the State of Uttarakhand (earlier in the State of Uttar Pradesh). The revision petitioner is carrying on the business of providing and establishing telecommunication networks. TCIL is registered under the State Trade Tax Act and the Central Trade Tax Act with the Trade Tax Office, Dehradun.2. On 01.11.1988, the revision petitioner entered into an agreement with the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the 'ONGC') for installation of two EPABX systems along with allied accessories and spare parts, on rent and guarantee basis. The equipment contemplated under the said agreement was not available with the TCIL...