Court : Uttaranchal
U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. Present Government Appeal was preferred by the State of Uttaranchal against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2004, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No. 160 of 2004, whereby accused-respondents Jagmohan Singh Rawat, Vasudev Singh and Deepak Kumar were acquitted of the charges of offences punishable under Sections 302 / 34 and 201 / 34 IPC. 2. It was mentioned in the grounds of appeal that the judgment and order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal was illegal and contrary to the facts and material evidence available on record. Learned trial court has wrongly disbelieved the prosecution evidence and wrongly acquitted accused-respondents. It was therefore, prayed that the Govt. Appeal be allowed and impugned order of acquittal of accused-respondents may be set aside A prayer was also made to convict and sentence the respondents accordingly to law. 3. A First Information Report was lodged by victims father PW1 Kishan Singh Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- (a) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 16-8-2012 (Annexure-2) and give appropriate opportunity to the petitioner company to cross-examine the witness as per its application filed in the adjudication proceedings bearing no. 14/2012 initiated by the Food Safety Officer, Roorkee for the alleged violation of Section 3(1)(zf)(i)(a) and (b), 31(1)(zf)(B)(ii), Section 3(1)(zx), Section 24, Section 26(2)(ii) and (v), Section 27(2)(c) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Regulation 2.2(3)(i), 2.3(5), 2.4.2(1) and 2.4.6(1) of the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling )Regulations, 2011 punishable under Sections 51, 52, 53 and 66 of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 before the Adjudicating Officer/Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar. (b) any other order(s) as this Hon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
V.K. Bist, J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 21.02.2012 passed by the respondent no.1 in Civil Appeal no.65 of 2011 Sardar Gurpreet Singh and another Vs. Sardar Tejender Singh and another. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the petition, are that plaintiffs/respondent nos.2 and 3 instituted Original Suit No.580 of 2001 Sardar Tajender Singh Gambhir and another Vs. Sardar Gurpreet Singh and another against the petitioners, seeking relief of prohibitory injunction, which was subsequently converted as a suit for declaration and possession inter-alia on the grounds that the plaintiffs are the owner-in-possession on the basis of Will dated 25.07.1996 executed by their predecessor and on the basis of family settlement reduced in form of MOU dated 29.05.1999. Regarding the same property, another Suit No.710 of 2001 Sardar Tajender Singh Gambhir and another Vs. Sardar Gurpreet Singh and another was also filed, seeking relief of injunctio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. One Ashok Kumar addressed a complaint to Station Officer, Police Station Gadarpur, District Udham Singh Nagar, on 27.06.1999, enumerating the facts therein that on the selfsame day, i.e., 27.06.1999, when the informant was harvesting his field, situated in Shyamnagar and the tractor was being driven by Bikau Miyan, then informants brother Rajendra Kumar (appellant) armed with licensed rifle came along with his father Hemraj (appellant) on the field. A dispute was going on between them (informant and appellants) regarding the partition of agricultural land. Accused-appellants started abusing informant Ashok Kumar. Hemraj exhorted Rajendra to kill the informant. Rajendra Kumar fired twice upon the informant with his licensed rifle with the intention to kill him (Ashok Kumar). One bullet hit the right arm of driver Bikau Miyan and the other bullet hit the mudguard of tractor. Ashok Kumar escaped unhurt. Many a people working in the field came. Accused-appellants went aw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
V.K. Bist, J. 1. Petitioner no.1 (hereinafter referred to as the school) is a private educational institution. One Scheme known as House Vacation Scheme for all employees in the administrative, technical and support staff categories for those who are staying in the school complex was launched by the petitioner no.1. This scheme was launched to free up the land occupied by the quarters for other purposes of the school. The father of the respondent was appointed on the post of Electrician in the year 1948 in the school. He was given a quarter within the campus of the school in lieu of his services with the school. He retired from service on 15.07.1983. The respondent joined the services of the school on 31.01.1984 on the post of Electrician and started living in the same quarter within the campus of the school, with the consent of the school. Most of the employees opted for the scheme and accordingly they started shifting out. The school on its part started demolishing such quarters. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
V.K. Bist, J. 1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.02.2010 passed by District Judge, Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 33 of 2009. The petitioner has further prayed to issue a writ of mandamus permitting the petitioner for selling the property no.11A, Municipal Road, Dehradun and Municipal No. 46/31/30 situate at Acharya Narender Deo Road, Dehradun and reinvesting in other property as per Mohammedan Law. 2. Briefly stated that that the property in question was inherited by the petitioner from his ancestor late Bibi Benazir Jan w/o Sardar Mohammad Yusuf Khan, who executed Waqf-al-al-aulad deed on 26thJune, 1934. Late Bibi Benazir Jan had three sons, namely, Sardar Amin Ullah Khan, Sardar Sher Ahmad Khan and Sardar Abdul Qadir Khan. Sardar Abdul Qadir Khan left two sons as successor, namely Sardar Abdullah Khan (respondent no.2) and Sardar Abdul Wahid Khan (petitioner). By filing Misc. Case No. 33 of 2009 before the District Judge, Dehradun the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
V.K. Bist, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 in the Court today is taken on record. Alongwith the supplementary counter affidavit the respondent no.1 has annexed a chart showing the vacancies of Patwari (Revenue Sub Inspector). As per the chart, there are 320 posts of Patwari (Revenue Sub Inspectors) vacant in various districts of the State. 3. Since controversy involved in these petitions is identical, hence all the petitions are being decided by a common judgment. Writ Petition No. 666 of 2011 shall be the leading case. 4. In the year 1995-96, the District Magistrate, Dehradun prepared a list of candidates for being sent for Patwari/Lekhpal training to the Special Patwari Training Institute, Almora (Patwari Training Institute, Almora). It is not disputed that excess number of candidates were sent for the training. The petitioners, alongwith others trainees, underwent Patwari/Lekhpa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
V.K. Bist, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Since controversy involved in these petitions is identical, hence both these petitions are being decided by a common judgment. 3. All the petitioners were initially appointed in regular civil police department. Their parent department is Civil Police. Member of Civil Police can be sent by way of transfer in other wings of police i.e. C.B.CID, Vigilance, Cooperative Cell, Hydle Vigilance etc. The petitioners are working in C.B. CID wing and are working on the post of Inspector. On 07.12.1979, the erstwhile state of Uttar Pradesh issued a Govt. Order whereby the State Government granted one months extra salary to the non-gazetted officers and employees of the police department. 4. In the year 2001, the respondents started paying one months extra salary to the petitioners. The respondents continued to pay said salary to the petitioners till 23rd June, 2006 on which date, an order was passed by the Financial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Prafulla C. Pant, J. Oral: 1) Heard. 2) This appeal is directed against order dated 13.09.2012, passed by learned Single Judge, of this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1970 of 2012, whereby said Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant. 3) Brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner was appointed as Vice Chairman of Uttarakhand Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission on 19.01.2010. It is admitted to the writ petitioner that he resigned from the said post vide his letter dated 07.01.2012. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the notification dated 07.01.2012, issued by Principal Secretary/Commissioner Social Welfare Department, Government of Uttarakhand, whereby the resignation was accepted. He further sought direction of this Court to continue to function as Vice Chairman of the Commission. In the counter affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge, it is stated that the writ petitioner/appellant submitted his re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Uttaranchal
Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in Suit No.238 of 2011 Vineet Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Garg pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun directing the petitioner to serve the summons on witnesses by dasti process. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction, directing to allow application No.161 C of the petitioner and Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun be directed to summon witnesses Sri S.K. Nandal and Smt. Kirti Jain through Court, in Suit No.238 of 2008 Vineet Kumar Jain Vs. Archana Garg. (c) Issue any other order or direction, which this Honble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (d) To award cost of the petition to the petitioner. 2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that on 21.05.2008...
Tag this Judgment!