Munne Khan & Ors. vs Juman & Ors. on 12 March, 2015

[Cites 19, Cited by 1]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Munne Khan & Ors. vs Juman & Ors. on 12 March, 2015

                                 W. P. No.
5.3.2015.
         Shri learned counsel for the petitioner.
         Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc M. A. No. 5.3.2015.

Shri learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/ State.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc S. A. No.1157-04 2.3.2015.

List after a week as prayed by the learned counsel for the appellants.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc S. A. No.1143=04.

2.3.2015.

Shri Dinesh Koushal, Advocate and Shri Vivek Baderiya, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Vijay Nayak, learned counsel for the respondent. List after four weeks as prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc S. A. No.707-04 2.3.2015.

List after a week as prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc S. A. No.639-04 2.3.2015.

Shri T. S. Ruprah, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Harpreet Shri Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellants.

Heard on the question of admission. Having heard the counsel perused the record of the courts below this appeal is admitted for final hearing on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the Courts below have erred in holding that the Will (Ex. P.1) was executed in accordance with law and defendants had inherited the right in the property on the basis of Will ?"

Issue notice of admission of this appeal to the respondents. P. F. within seven days. Notice be made returnable within six weeks.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc S. A. No.430-04 2.3.2015.

List after two weeks as prayed by the learned counsel for the appellants.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc S. A. No.966-04 2.3.2015.

Shri Mohd Ali, learned counsel for the appellant. He is heard on the question of the admission. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2004. The appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction. It is pleaded that the father of the plaintiff was granted Patta of the suit land, which is of land of Forest Department in the year 1979. After the grant of Patta the father of the the plaintiff was died and thereafter Patta was granted to another person. He claimed the right of ownership on the basis of adverse possession. Both the Courts have rejected the plea of the plaintiff on the ground that the father of the plaintiff was granted Patta and no right of ownership accrued in favour of the plaintiff. In the present case there is no evidence on record that after death of father the plaintiff continues of lease holder in accordance with terms and conditions.

Apart from this the land on which the plaintiff is claiming the right of ownership is a Forest land. In such circumstance, in my opinion right of the ownership in regard to Forest land cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff. I do not find any merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for determination. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

C. C. as per rules.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.3755-07.

2.3.2015.

Shri Shri Devashish Sakalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Ashish Giri, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. With the consent of the parties, petition is disposed of on the following terms:

1. That the petitioner shall submit a fresh representation in regard to his liability of payment of property tax and the Municipal Corporation shall decide the same in accordance with law taking into consideration the order dated 25.8. 1999 passed in M. A. No.97/97 within a period of six weeks from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that this Court has not opined about merits of the Case.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.3648-2007 2.3.2015.

Shri A. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State. Heard on the question of admission. Admit.

No P. F. is necessary because the respondents are already served.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.3627-07 2.3.2015.

Shri Sunil Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of resolution passed by the Municipal Council dated 4.9.2014, this petition has become infructuous, he wants to withdraw the same.

Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition if any occasion arises in future.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.3619-07.

2.3.2015.

Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Eight weeks time is granted as last opportunity to file reply. If no reply is filed on the next date of hearing then appropriate costs shall be imposed.

List the case on 5th of May, 2015.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.3531-07.

2.3.2015.

Shri P. C. Chandak, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri J. K. Pillai, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. This petition has been filed against the order dated 26.8.2002 (Ann. P.5). By the aforesaid order the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed because no body appears before the appellate authority on the aforesaid date.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has forwarded an application before the appellate authority and requested for adjournment of appeal on the medical ground and that has not been considered.

Looking to the facts of the case and nature of the controversy involved in this petition, in my opinion it would be just and proper if the order of the appellate authority be set a side with imposition of cost and matter be remanded back to decide the appeal on merits. Consequently, this petition is allowed and impugned orders dated 26.8.2002 and 28.9.2006 (Ann. P.5 & P.7) are quashed subject to cost of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent within four weeks.

Subject to payment of cost the appellate authority shall decided the case on merits within eight weeks from the date of taking the charge of the Presiding Officer.

C. C. as per rules.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.3420-07 2.3.2015.

Shri Dharmendra Soni learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that during pendency of this petition the receiver has been appointed in regard to the liability of the company. If there is any grievance of petitioner the petitioner is at liberty to approach the receiver.

With the aforesaid observation the petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.3389-07 2.3.2015.

List day after tomorrow, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.3331/07, 2.3.2015.

Counsel for the respondent No.2, 3 and 4 has submitted that reply has been filed. However, copy of the same has not been supplied to the petitioner. Copy of reply be supplied within a period of three weeks.

List the case along with W. P. No.3345/07.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc M. Cr. C. No.2758-15 3.3.2015 Shri Mukesh Pandey, counsel for the applicants. Shri Manoj Kushwaha, PL for the respondent/State. Heard.

This first application is filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicants as they have been arrested on 17.1.15 in connection with Crime No.30/15 registered at P.S. Dehat district Chhindwara in respect of the offence punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A, 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Applicant No.1 Satanand Chourey , aged 55 years, is father-in- law of the deceased, applicant No.2, Motilal aged 28 years is brother-in-law (Devar) and applicant No.3 Dashrath aged about 34 years is the husband of sister-in-law of the deceased. The marriage of deceased with Anil Chourey was performed on 30.4.12.

The allegation is that the husband of the deceased had demanded motorcycle from the deceased and for that he had tortured to the deceased. The mother of the deceased in her evidence deposed that husband of the deceased had demanded motor cycle and he used to torture with the deceased. It is further deposed by her that for last four months the husband of the deceased had been living separately.

The aforesaid prayer is opposed by the state counsel saying that looking to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was committed, the applicants do not deserve to be released on bail.

Looking to the facts of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the petition is allowed. It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) by each of the applicants along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of CJM Chhindwara, they shall be released on bail with a direction to appear in the trial court on every date of the trial.

C.C as per rules.

(S.K.Gangele) Judge kkc S. A. No.1145-03 and S. A. No.17-04. 3.3.2015.

Both the appeals being admitted by the Court and they are formally listed along with S. A. No.70/02. Hence, it is not necessary to pass any order in those appeals.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc S. A. No.2717-05.

3.3.2015.

Shri Ashok Lalwani, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Anubhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that as per his information one of the respondent had died.

Parties are directed to verify the position. List after two weeks.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc S. A. No.2743-05.

3.3.2015.

Shri Ajay Sen, learned counsel for the appellants. This is defendants/appellants appeal affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.

The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and delivery of possession. He pleaded that the suit property was of the ownership of the plaintiff. He purchased the aforesaid land from the earlier owner/Bhoomiswami by the registered sale deed dated 22.11.1988, thereafter he was placed in possession of such property, mutation was also ordered in his favour. The defendant disputed the fact in regard to possession. Hence, he filed the suit.

The defendants/ appellants pleaded that earlier owner of the land had taken loan of Rs.10,000/- from them on 4.7.85 and thereafter placed the defendants in possession of the suit property. He also executed an agreement for sale of the property, hence the plaintiffs have no right in the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit. The appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court.

From the written statement filed by the defendants/ appellants it is clear that they have claimed the right of ownership on the basis of agreement to sale. It is an admitted position of law that agreement to sale does not confer any title. In this view of the matter, in my opinion the trial court has rightly decreed the suit. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal for determination. The appeal is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc S. A. No.2725-05 3.3.2015.

Counsel of the appellant has submitted that sole appellant has died and prays for and is granted fours weeks time for substitution of LRs.

List after four weeks.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc M. A. No.3386-05.

3.3.2015.

Shri Amit Bhurrak, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Anoop Nair and Shri Sharad Punj, learned counsel for respondent No.5/ Insurance Company.

The appellant/ owner has filed this appeal against the award dated 5.8.2005.

The main question in this appeal is that whether the rider of the motorcycle had a valid driving licence at the time of the incident.

The Claims Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the claim on the ground that the rider of motorcycle had no driving licence at the time of incident.

On behalf of the deceased A. W. 2, in his evidence deposed that rider of the motorcycle had a licence, however, no copy of the driving licence or original licence was filed before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal further recorded the finding that the clerk of the R. T. O. office was summoned and he on the basis of temporary licence register deposed that a driving licence was issued in favour of Arvind Kumar injured for the period of 6.8.2002 to 5.2.2003. The deceased was the pillion rider. Thus, it is clear that the rider of the motorcycle had no driving licence at the time of incident. There is no other evidence in regard to licence issued in favour of Arvind Kumar. In this view of the matter, in my opinion Arvind Kumar had driven the motorcycle without having the licence. Consequently, Claims Tribunal rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to indemnify the claim in terms of the policy. I do not find any merit in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.14033-08.

3.3.2015.

Shri Anirudra Pandety, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/ State.

Two weeks time is granted, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to file the rejoinder.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.14060-08 & W. P. No.14269-08 3.3.2015.

Shri K. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have filed this petition for the following reliefs:

1. that Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record from the respondents and after perusal of the petitioner and other persons. Hon'ble Court be pleased to give the direction of appointment since 1.11.2008 in the interest of justice.

2. that Hon'ble Court be pleased to give the directions to the respondents to pay the salary in each month within the allowance according to advertisement (Ann. P.1) and also further direct, they are pay the remaining arrear to the petitioners, since appointment to till date.

3. Any other writ, direction or order as may be deemed fit may also be given together with awarding of cost of this proceeding.

As per return filed by the respondents, the petitioners were applied in pursuance to advertisement Annexure P.4 for appointment to the post of Community Worker. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment mentioned in the advertisement the candidates were engaged on contract basis up to completion of project and the candidates are not being entitled to get regular appointment under the Central Government or under the State Government.

It is further pleaded that Indus Project is joint project of Government of India and United State of America. This project was not extended after 30.9.2008, hence the services of petitioners were terminated.

From the facts of the case it is clear that the petitioners were appointed for a particular project and after completion of the project their services come to an end in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment. When the project has not been extended, this Court cannot order for continuation of appointment of the petitioners or the petitioners be declared as Government servant. There is no merit in this petition, it is hereby dismissed.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.14065-08 3.3.2015.

One week's time is granted, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder.

I. R. to continue.

No further adjournment shall be granted on the next date of hearing.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.14282-08.

3.3.2015.

Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Rahul Jain, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of allotment of nazul land in favour of the respondent No.5 dated 25.9.2008.

The contention of the petitioner is that he had submitted an application for allotment of nazul land. The application of the petitioner was accepted, the premium was also paid. However, subsequently the land was alloted in favour of the respondent No.5, which is illegal.

In reply to the petition the respondent No.1 to 4 in its return admitted the fact that the petitioner submitted an application for allotment of 1200 sq. ft. and matter was taken up to the level of Commissioner, Revenue. The Commissioner Revenue sought certain clarification from the subordinate officers and thereafter the matter was put up before the Nazul Officer. Meanwhile respondent No.5 applied for land in question and Collector thereafter the Collector himself after ad measuring the land the Collector has recommended for allotment of 4800 sq. ft. land in favour of the respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 deposited the requisite fees in accordance with the rules. Notifications were published in the news paper in regard to allotment of land in favour of the respondent No.5. Finally the Government passed an order in regard to allotment of land ad measuring 4800 sq. ft. in favour of the respondent No.5.

It is further pleaded that earlier the brother of the petitioner was also allotted a land and he is running a hotel, adjacent to the land for which the petitioner has submitted an application.

The petitioner is an individual. The respondent No.5 is a political party. There was no final allotment in favour of the petitioner.

Apart from this, the brother of the petitioner earlier has also allotted a Nazul land, in my opinion there is no illegality or irregularity in allotment of the land in favour of the respondent No.5. A person has no vested right for allotment of Nazul land and there is also no rule that petitioner be given priority in regard to allotment of land, who had applied earlier. However, in my opinion the allotment of land in favour of respondent No.5 is more rational because the respondent No.5 is political party and the petitioner is an individual person, I do not find any merit in this petition. It is hereby dismissed.

The petitioner has taken a ground that land which was earmarked for construction of road has been alloted to the respondent No.5. It is for the government to see that whether the land was suitable for allotment or not. Considering all the facts the land was allotted to the respondent No.5.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.14062-08 3.3.2015.

Shri N. S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Rahul Jain, learned G. A. for respondent/ State. The grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that they were held ineligible for appointment to the post of Forest Guards illegally.

The petitioners earlier engaged on daily wages as labourer (Vanrakshak). Subsequently, the department decided to appoint the daily wagers on regular service to the post of Forest Guards. The details of the petitioners were also called. After scrutiny, it was found that the petitioners were not illegible for service because they had more than two children and last child was born after 26th of January, 2001, as fixed by the Rules.

The State Government has made an amendment in the Madhya Pradesh Services (General Condition of Service), Rules, 1961. By the aforesaid amendment after sub-rule (4) of rule 6 the following sub-rules have been inserted, which are as under:

(5) No candidate shall be eligible for appointment to a service or post who has married before the maturity age fixed for marriage.

(6) No candidate shall be eligible for appointment to a service or post who has more than two living children, one of whom is born on or after 26th of January, 2001.

In accordance with the aforesaid Rule, no candidate shall be eligible for appointment to a service or post who has more than two living children, one of whom is born on or after 26th of January, 2001.

As per information submitted by the petitioner No.1 Dilip Kumar Mongre, he had three children. He further stated that after 19.7.2005 no child was born, it means that third child had born on 19.7.2005. Similarly, as per the affidavit submitted by the petitioner No.2, he had three children and third child was born on 26.6.2006.

Looking to facts of the case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners had three children and third child had born after the cut of date and as per the amended rule no person shall be eligible for appointment to a service or post who has more than two living children, one of whom is born on or after 26th of January, 2001.

In this view of the matter, in my opinion the department has not committed any illegality or irregularity in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners. I do not find any merit in this petition, it is hereby dismissed.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.14961-08.

4.3.2015.

Ms. Pushpanjali Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amit Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 submits that reply be filed positively within three weeks.

List after three weeks.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.15005-08 4.3.2015.

Shri S. D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. As last opportunity six weeks time is granted to file the reply. If the reply is not filed on or before next date of hearing appropriate cost shall be imposed on the next date.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.15014-08 4.3.2015.

List along with W. P. No.3104/06, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.15034-08 4.3.2015.

Shri R. S. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. As last opportunity six weeks time is granted to file the reply. If the reply is not filed on or before next date of hearing appropriate cost shall be imposed.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.15061-08.

4.3.2015.

Ms. Anjana Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/ State.

Return has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has become infructuous.

The petition is dismissed as become infructuous.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.15078-08.

4.3.2015.

Shri Vivek Rusiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/ State.

Return has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has become infructuous.

The petition is dismissed as become infructuous.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.15137-08 4.3.2015.

Shri R. N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/ State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that he has no instruction from the client.

Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution, subject to liberty to file application for restoration, if any occasion arises.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.15137-08 4.3.2015.

Shri R. N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/ State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that he has no instruction from the client.

Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution, subject to liberty to file application for restoration, if any occasion arises.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.15460-08 4.3.2015.

Shri R. N. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/ State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that that he has no instruction from the client.

Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution, subject to liberty to file application for restoration, if any occasion arises.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.15056-08.

4.3.2015.

Ms. Shraddha Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/ State.

The petitioner has filed this petition against the orders dated 18.9.2008 and 4.10.2008 (Annexure P.1 & P.2).

The petitioner was engaged on daily wages as Chowkidar. He filed the petition before this court for his regularization, which was registered as W. P. No.14264-03. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court the services of the petitioner were regularized under work charge establishment in the pay scale of Rs.2550-55-2660-60- 3200 and regular salary was paid to the petitioner, however, subsequently vide impugned orders the increment which was granted to the petitioner had been withdrawn. It is mentioned in the order Ann. P.1 that the petitioner would get the pay scale of Rs.2550-55- 2660-60-3200 and D. A. without increment.

The respondent/ State in its reply pleaded that the petitioner was regularized in the pay scale of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200, thus the order was later on modified vide dated 27.8.2004. It was mentioned in the order of modification that the petitioner was regularized on the minimum pay scale of Rs.2550/- and dearness allowance but without increment. Hence, the increment which was granted to the petitioner was withdrawn.

In my opinion, when an employee has been regularized in a particular pay scale he is entitled to get the salary of pay scale along with the increment, non-grant of increment is a punishment, which cannot be imposed without any reason. The decision of the authority that the petitioner be treated as regular in the pay scale however, without any increment is arbitrary and illegal. Consequently, petition of the petitioner is allowed and impugned orders dated 18.9.2008 and 4.10.2008 (Annexure P.1 & P.2) are hereby quashed.

It is ordered that the petitioner shall be entitled to get all the benefit in accordance with the order of regularization. The arrears recovered from the petitioner that may be paid to him within a period of eight weeks from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order.

C. C. as per rules.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.15210-08 4.3.2015.

Shri Vinod Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondent. Petitioner has filed this petition for grant of compassionate appointment. The father of the petitioner was working on the post of Assistant Grade -III since 1977. He had gone missing from the platform in the year 1989 and thereafter his whereabout were not known. The mother of the petitioner filed an application for grant of Pensionery benefits and other benefits of the father of the petitioner, that were paid to her. Thereafter petitioner filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 17.2.2002.

The respondents in its return pleaded that the respondents informed the petitioner that it is not possible to accord compassionate appointment to the petitioner looking to the long delay. It is further submitted that after 2000 the company had stopped the grant of compassionate appointment looking to financial crunch of the company and thereafter private companies had taken over the work of Electricity board.

It is a fact that the father of the petitioner had gone missing in the year 1989, thereafter the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment in the year 2002. The Apex Court in the matter of State of J & K & others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, (2006) 5 SCC 766, has held that the compassionate appointment is an exception to general rule and application for compassionate appointment be filed within a reasonable time because the object to provide the compassionate appointment is to give some benefit to the deceased family member.

Looking to the fact that the petitioner had applied belatedly and after the petitioner was applied the respondent had already stopped providing the compassionate appointment. In my opinion, there is no merit in the petition. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.17166-06 4.3.2015.

List in the next week, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc Cr. A. No.343-15 4.3.2015.

None for the appellant.

Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/ State.

List the case along with Cr. A. No.335/15.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc Cr. A. No.335-15 4.3.2015.

Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent/ State.

Heard on IA No.2162/15.

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the IA.

IA is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file the same after three months.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.11696-14.

4.3.2015.

Shri Awdhesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Amit Kumar Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2.

The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs in this petition:

1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondents to quash or set aside the impugned order passed in Execution proceeding MJC No.247/12, order dated 1.7.2014 (Ann. P.5).

2. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondents to call the entire records pertaining to the execution proceeding MJC No.247/12 dated 1.7.2014 and MCC No.43/1994 order dated 11.8.2011.

3. Any other efficacious remedy/ remedies and or relief/ reliefs, which this Court considers fit, necessary and appropriate in the circumstances of the case kindly be granted to the petitioner.

4. Costs of the writ petition together with petitioner's counsel fee, ordered to be taxed, against State respondent.

The petitioner is the owner of the offending vehicle. The Claim was filed in the year 1994 by the dependents of the deceased, who was died in the accident. The petitioner became ex-party in the aforesaid proceeding, thereafter ex-party proceedings were set aside vide order dated 1.7.2000 passed in MCC No.3/98. The petitioner was afforded liberty to join the proceedings. Thereafter again the petitioner became ex-party and did not file the written statement. The award has been pronounced by the Tribunal.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the after 2010 the petitioner became serious ill because he was suffering from Cancer and again an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceeding and also an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC was filed.

In my opinion, this petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable because because the petitioner became ex-parte in the year 2010 again and award was pronounced on 10.8.2011, in execution proceeding the petitioner raised the objection.

From the conduct of the petitioner and fact that the claimants are facing the case from 1994. There is no merit in the petition, if the petitioner was ill in the year 2010 his lawyer could have pursued the proceeding before the Tribunal. Apparently the petitioner avoid the proceedings and he wants to delay the proceedings being owner of the offending vehicle. I do not find any merit in this petition, consequently it is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.15267-08.

4.3.2015.

Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Shri Mohan Sausarkar, learned counsel for respondent No.5. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition in regard to change of the post of the petitioner. Petitioner wants to change his post as Revenue Inspector.

Admittedly, the petitioner has appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk. There is no provision for change of cadre or post.

Earlier the petitioner has filed the petition before this court that was dismissed. Thereafter, writ appeal was filed, that was also dismissed.

Looking to the facts of the case no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner, it is hereby dismissed.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc M. Cr. C. No.3332-15.

4.3.2015.

Shri R. S. Patel, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. Shri Sankalp Kochar learned counsel for the objector. List the case on 13th of March, 2015, as prayed by the parties.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.3145-15.

4.3.2015.

Shri Ajay Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned P. L. for the respondent/ State. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that he had purchased a truck which was financed by India Bulls Finance Company, Branch Jabalpur. Thereafter the truck was handed over to the respondent No.3 Nishar Ahmad in terms of the agreement Annexure P.1. As per aforesaid agreement respondent No.3 was responsible to pay the installments, however he has not paid any installment and company has issued a notice to the petitioner to pay the installment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner lodged an FIR at P. S. but no action has been taken.

The petitioner may pursue the remedy if there is any criminal offence is made out committed by the respondent No.3. Primely in my opinion it is a commercial civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3.

This petition is disposed of accordingly with aforesaid observation.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.3132-15.

4.3.2015.

Ku. C. V. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jian, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State. Learned government advocate is directed to seek instruction positively before next date of hearing.

List the case on 9th of March, 2015.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.3118-15.

4.3.2015.

Shri Sachin Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents. P. F. be submitted within seven days. Notices be made returnable within six weeks.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.3108-15.

4.3.2015.

Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents. P. F. be submitted within seven days. Notices be made returnable within six weeks.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.3096-15 4.3.2015.

Shri R. B. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply copy of the petition with annexures to the counsel of the respondent No.2.

List the case on 16.3.2014.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.3053-15 4.3.2015.

Shri Ajay Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issued notice to the respondents. P. F. be submitted within seven days. Notice be made returnable within six weeks.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.2937-15.

4.3.2015.

Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned G. A. for the respondent/ State. The petitioner has filed this petition for following reliefs:

1. That, this Hon'ble Court would be pleased to direct the respondent No1 and respondent No.5 & 6 to get register a FIR in term of Section 154 of the Cr. P. C. on the basis of the allegation as stated in the petitioner's complaint dated 3.8.2012 (Ann. P.7) read with the department proceedings reports/ findings (Ann. P.4) by issuance a writ in the nature of mandamus as on the perusal of the petitioners complaint's Ann. P.7 and Department Enquiry Proceeding Report/ finding (Ann. P.4) Commission of cognizable offences against the respondent No.7 to 12 are made out which are punishable under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 217 of the IPC.

2. That, this Hon'ble Court would be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 and 4 to initiate/ conduct full fledged departmental enquiry against respondent No.12 in accordance with the provision of Rule 14 of the Civil Service (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law as has been directed by the Hon'ble High Court of M. P. in W. P. No.4686/2009 vide its order dated 29.10.2009 (Ann. P.6) by issuance a writ in the nature of Mandamus as the respondent has taken no steps till date for the compliance of the order of the Hon'ble High Court.

3. And grant such other of further relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

It is pleaded by the petitioner that respondent No.12, Mr. Rakesh Mishra prepared a false and fabricated order of deputation and absorption and on the basis of this order he has joined on the post of Revenue Inspector at Municipal Council, Badwani and he also get an order of absorption of his services on the post of Revenue Inspector. A complaint was made by the petitioner, thereafter an inquiry was conducted and it was found that the order of deputation was not proper. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that the authority be directed to register FIR.

In the present case, there is no injury to the petitioner, no offence has been committed against the petitioner. If any offence has been committed by the respondent No.12, a complaint has been lodged by the petitioner, the State authorities are at liberty to take action in accordance with law.

This petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.15004-08 4.3.2015.

Shri K. N. Pethia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned G. A. for respondent/ State. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that he was held ineligible for appointment to the post of Forest Guard illegally.

The petitioner earlier engaged on daily wages as labourer (Vanrakshak). Subsequently, the department decided to appoint the daily wagers on regular service to the post of Forest Guard. The details of the petitioner were also called. After scrutiny, it was found that the petitioner was not illegible for service because he had more than two children and last child was born after 26th of January, 2001, as fixed by the Rules.

(7) No candidate shall be eligible for appointment to a service or post who has married before the maturity age fixed for marriage.

(8) No candidate shall be eligible for appointment to a service or post who has more than two living children, one of whom is born on or after 26th of January, 2001.

As per information submitted by the petitioner he had three children and third child had born on 15.1.2008.

Looking to facts of the case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had three children and third child had born after the cut of date and as per the amended rule no person shall be eligible for appointment to a service or post who has more than two living children, one of whom is born on or after 26th of January, 2001.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in W. P. No.6621/08, however the order is not applicable in the present case.

In this view of the matter, in my opinion the department has not committed any illegality or irregularity in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. I do not find any merit in this petition, it is hereby dismissed.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc CONC. No.734-09 5.3.2015.

Shri Sidharth Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this contempt petition has become infructuous.

Contempt petition is dismissed as become infructuous.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc C. R. No.228-09 5.3.2015.

Shri R. P. Khare, learned counsel for the applicant. Counsel for the applicant submits that matter has been settled between the parties and this revision has become infructuous.

The Revision is disposed of as become infructuous.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.10316-08 5.3.2015.

Parties through their respective counsel. Six weeks time is granted to the learned G. A. to file the reply.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.10311-08 5.3.2015.

Shri N. S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner. List on 24th of March, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.10264-08 5.3.2015.

List after a week, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.10207-08 5.3.2015.

List after eight weeks, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.10003-08 5.3.2015.

Parties through their respective counsel. Petition has already been admitted, hence there is no necessity to pass any order on admission.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.10125-08 5.3.2015.

Shri Sidharth Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has become infructuous.

Petition is dismissed as become infructuous.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.10078-08 5.3.2015.

Parties through their respective counsel. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not received the copy of the return. Copy of return be supplied within a week.

List after a week.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.9842-08 5.3.2015.

Shri Y. M. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. List in the next week, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W. P. No.9788-08.

5.3.2015.

Parties through their respective counsel. List after six weeks, as prayed by the parties.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc M. A. No.3278-08 5.3.2015.

Shri N. S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on the question of admission. Admit.

Issue notice to the respondents. P. F. be submitted within seven days. Notice be made returnable within eight weeks.

I. R. to continue.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc S. A. No.1427-08 5.3.2015.

List after two weeks' as prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc CONC. No.1661-07 5.3.2015.

Shri Sidharth Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this contempt petition has become infructuous, he seeks liberty to file appropriate proceedings, if any occasion arises.

Contempt petition is dismissed as become infructuous with liberty as prayed for.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc C. R. No.377-07 5.3.2015.

Shri G. S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes that he will pay fresh P. F. for service of notice on the respondents within seven days.

Notice be made returnable within eight weeks.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc M. A. No.4284-08 5.3.2015.

Shri N. S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been filed against the award dated 1.5.2008 passed by the Claims Tribunal.

The Claims Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of the bus. The offending bus No. M. P.05- G/0840 was insured with the appellant/ insurance company at the relevant time. There was no violation of terms and continuations of the insurance policy. It is further observed by the Tribunal that the claimant has suffered 25% permanent disability in his right hand while he was travelling in the bus. He was admitted in Bafna Hospital and Research Center, Indore and after operation a rod was inserted in his hand.

Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case, the Tribunal had awarded a compensation of Rs.1,85,117/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and doctor has not been examined to support the fact of permanent disability. I am not in agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal has considered all the aspects. The claimant was admitted in the hospital where he was operated and rod was inserted. A certificate of permanent disability is also filed by the claimant.

Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case a proper compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal. No case is made for interference in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

(S. K. Gangele) Judge kkc W.P. No. 11.03.2015 Shri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Surabhi Nigam, learned Dy. G. A. for respondent.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.9576 of 2008.

10.03.2015 Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Suribhi Nigam learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.2 to 4.

This court while considering the controversy raised in the present writ petition has recorded in its order dated 29.2.2012 the fact relating to inquiry conducted by the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.2 and 3, who have filed the return specifically stating that the petitioner was not fulfilling the criteria laid down by the Central Government for grant of "Samman Nidhi", therefore the claim of the petitioner was rejected. However, the fact remains that the petitioner is receiving "Samman Nidhi" from the State Government, and therefore, Collector District Bhopal was directed to send a representative along with original record to indicate in what manner the "Samman Nidhi" was being paid to the petitioner.

From the documents available on record filed along with the return of respondents No.2 and 3, it appears that no inquiry was conducted in respect of the confinement of the husband of the petitioner in jail during freedom fight movement. Though, it is said that the husband of the petitioner was not behind the bar during the relevant period and his confinement was after the movement of merger of Bhopal, therefore, the same was not acceptable. In view of the aforesaid, it was necessary on the part of the respondents to more categorically state whether the husband of the petitioner was confined in jail on account of taking part in the freedom fight movement or not.

Let an additional affidavit to this effect be filed by the Collector Bhopal indicating such facts as also the manner of making the payment of "Samman Nidhi" by the State Government to the petitioner as directed vide order dated 29.2.2012. Let this be done within two weeks.

List immediately after two weeks. A copy of this order be made available to learned Dy. Govt. Advocate to communicate the same to Collector, Bhopal for compliance.

Registry to send copy of order by e-mail/ fax to Collector, Bhopal for compliance.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.14876 of 2014.

10.03.2015 Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1 to 3.

Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nityanand Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has filed the amended paper book in terms of the order passed by this Court on 4.3.2015. The same is not available on record. It is also informed by the senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 that amended paper book is not made available to him as well.

Office is directed to trace out the amended paper book filed by the petitioner and place on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner to furnish a copy of the amended paper book to the assisting counsel of learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 during the course of the day.

Post for hearing on IA No.846/2015 on 16.3.2015.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.9527 of 2008.

10.03.2015 Shri Ajay Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri S. R. Tamrakar, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents. It is informed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that he has not received the copy of the reply filed by the respondent No.2.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 undertakes to furnish a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day.

If necessary, learned counsel for the petitioner may examine the reply of respondent No.2 and file the rejoinder within two weeks.

List immediately after two weeks.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.9497 of 2008.

10.03.2015 Shri Saurabh Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for short adjournment to file rejoinder to the return of the respondent No.1 to

4. Such return was filed in the year 2009, therefore, as last opportunity two weeks time is allowed to the petitioner to file rejoinder, failing which writ petition would be heard without rejoinder of the petitioner.

List immediately after two weeks.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.9493 of 2008.

10.03.2015 Shri R. K. Samaiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent. It is informed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, 2 and 3 that in his brief the return filed by the respondents is not available, and therefore, some time may be granted to obtain a copy of such return.

Spare set of return filed with the original record of the petition be made available to the learned G. A. He will examine the same and also ascertain whether any vacancy is available on the post in question in the establishment of respondent No.2 to accommodate the petitioner in case writ petition is allowed. This information be furnished by the next date of hearing.

It is pointed out by the learned G. A. that most probabily respondent No.3 is not served with the notice, though he is impleaded as party by name.

Office record indicated that notice of this writ petition was prepared to be issued to the respondent No.3 through District Judge, Katni but the same was never issued by the office.

Registrar (J) to ensure for issuance of said notice to the respondent No.3 immediately and to further ensure that same is served on the respondent No.3 by the next date.

Let this matter be posed for hearing on 6th of April, 2015.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.12791 of 2009.

10.03.2015 Shri S. D. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc WRIT PETITION No.3998/2005 10.03.2015 None for the petitioner.

Shri J.K. Pillai, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. The order-sheet dated 27.11.2014 clearly prescribes that last oppor- tunity was granted to learned Counsel for the petitioner to file reply to I.A. No.7669/2010, an application for vacating stay, moved by the respondent No.2 with clear stipulation that in case reply of the I.A. aforesaid is not filed, the matter would be heard on the said I.A. Yet another opportunity was granted on 02.03.2015 to file the reply as a prayer for adjournment was made. Still no reply to the I.A. aforesaid has been filed.

By filing the aforesaid I.A. it is contended that since the order impugned in the present writ petition is appellable order, which appeal was never preferred by the petitioner, in fact no interim stay is re- quired to be granted to the petitioner. Even otherwise the order was rightly passed under Section 14(b) and 7(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and, therefore, entire ac- tion taken by respondent No.2 is just and proper. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and keeping in view that none is present on behalf of the petitioner to prosecute this writ petition, the interim order dated 06.06.2005 is vacated.

Let the matter be posted after two weeks for hearing on admission.

(K.K. Trivedi) Judge Skc Lateron at 2.30 p. m.:

Shri Sudeep Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and stated that through the order was dictated but is not signed, therefore a prayer is made that instead of keeping this petition pending for hearing on admission the same may be disposed of finally with liberty to the petitioner to assail the order of penalty impugned in the present writ petition before the appellate authority.

Such a submission is made only because an objection is raised by the respondent by filing a reply to the writ petition that the order impugned is nothing but consequential order of the original order passed by the authorities under the provisions of Section 7 (A) of the Act and said order was never called in question anywhere, thus the same has attained finality. Other objection is availability of statutory remedy of appeal against the order impugned in the writ petition.

It is contended by the learned counsel present in the Court for respondent No.2 that the relief as claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted unless the original order is set aside. Since, the original order is not challenged in appropriate manner, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

After considering the rival submission of the counsel of the parties, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to resort to the remedy of appeal against the order impugned before the competent appellate authority of the respondent within a month from today. If such an appeal is filed along with an application for condonation of delay taking the plea of pendency of this petition before this Court, the appellate authority will condon the delay and will decide the appeal of the petitioner on its own merits. Needless to say the grounds raised in the appeal are to be specific and in terms of the law and not otherwise. It will be open to the appellate authority to exercise its power of waiver of quantum of penalty in appropriate manner in case any specific ground is substantiated by the petitioner. Let this exercise be completed within six months from the date of filing of the appeal.

With the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of finally. C. C. as per rules.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.12470-08.

11.03.2015 Ku. C. V. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Surabhi Nigam, learned Dy. G. A. for respondent/ State. Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for the intervenor. IA No.2923/10, an application for permission to intervene in the writ petition to oppose the same made by one Smt. Deep Singh not on board, taken on board.

After due consideration keeping in view the fact that the inquiry impugned in the present writ petition was initiated on the complaint made by the intervenor, the IA stands allowed.

Let Smt. Deepa Singh be impleaded as respondent No.7 in the writ petition by correcting the cause title in seven days.

Copy of writ petition be made available to the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor, who will file return to writ petition within two weeks, list thereafter for hearing on admission.

Interim relief remain in operation till then.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.12423-08.

11.03.2015 Shri Atul Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents. Admit.

No notice is necessary after admission to the respondents, as respondents are served and represented, returns and additional returns have already been filed.

Looking to the nature of the claim made in the writ petition and age of the petitioner who has said to be senior citizen, hearing of writ petition is expedited.

Be listed for final hearing in the appropriate category, as High Court expedited cases.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.12298-08.

11.03.2015 Shri Gopal Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Surabhi Nigam, learned Dy. G. A. for respondents. Though by specific order dated 22.2.2012 right to file return to the respondents was closed by this Court but looking to the controversy involved in the present writ petition where change in the pension payment order is made after its final sanction by the respondent authority, it would be appropriate to hear the respondents. For the said purposes it is directed that respondent No.5, District Education Officer Chhatarpur shall remain present before the Court on 6th of April, 2015, along with original record of sanction of pension to the petitioner to explain the validity of the order of reducing the pension of the petitioner after its final sanction.

Let copy of this order be sent to the Collector Chhatarpur by e- mail/fax to communicate the same to the respondents No.2 and 5 with a direction to comply with the order passed by this court without fail.

Post for hearing on 6th of April, 2015.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.12286-08.

11.03.2015 Shri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Surabhi Nigam, learned Dy. G. A. for the respondents/ State.

Admit.

No notice is necessary to the respondents, as they are served and represented, returns have already been filed.

Looking to the nature of the claim made in the writ petition hearing of writ petition is expedited.

Be listed for final hearing in the appropriate category, as High Court expedited matters.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.12240-08.

11.03.2015 Shri Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri O. P. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 3. Ms. Surabhi Nigam, learned Dy. G. A. for respondent No.4. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.2.2008, said to be passed by respondent No.4 returning back the appeal preferred by the petitioner as the same was not maintainable before the said authority nor the said authority was competent appellate authority to entertain any such appeal of the petitioner under the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal was addressed to the appellate authority Poorva Kshetra Vidhyut Vitran Company Ltd. Sagar but the same was return back by the respondent No.4 saying that it was barred by limitation. It is thus contended that the order impugned is bad in law and is liable to be quashed with direction to the respondents to decide the appeal of the petitioner in terms of the law.

A return is filed by the respondent No.4 saying that the said authority was not the competent appellate authority, and therefore, the appeal should have been filed before the appellate authority and for that reason the appeal preferred by the petitioner was return back to him. No error is committed in passing the order impugned.

The respondent No.2 has filed the return though raising various grounds but the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 present in the Court said that in fact under the Act aforesaid Executive Engineer of respondent No.2 is the competent appellate authority to decide the appeal of the petitioner.

It is not clear from the pleading that whether any properly constituted appeal was preferred before the competent appellate authority by the petitioner in terms of provisions of Section 127 of Electricity Act or not. If the appeal was preferred before an authority not having the jurisdiction to decide such appeal, and the documents were return back to the petitioner, it cannot be said that any illegality was committed by the said authority in returning the appeal to the petitioner. In view of this, no relief as claimed in the petition can be granted to the petitioner.

However, it would be appropriate to direct that the petitioner may prefer an appeal against the impugned action before the competent appellate authority within a month from today along with an application for condonation of delay including the explanation of delay on account of pendency of the present writ petition before this Court. If such an appeal is filed the competent appellate authority would decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously in terms of the law preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the appeal.

With aforesaid the writ petition stands finally disposed of.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.12681-08 11.03.2015 Shri Suresh Kuril, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned P. L. for respondent No.1 to 4. Shri Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.6. It is informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that arguing counsel of the petitioner is not available because of death of his father.

Let matter be posted after a week.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.9576 of 2008.

10.03.2015 Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Suribhi Nigam learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.2 to 4.

List immediately after two weeks. A copy of this order be made available to learned Dy. Govt. Advocate to communicate the same to Collector, Bhopal for compliance.

Registry to send copy of order by e-mail/ fax to Collector, Bhopal for compliance.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.14876 of 2014.

10.03.2015 Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1 to 3.

Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nityanand Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

Post for hearing on IA No.846/2015 on 16.3.2015.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.9527 of 2008.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 undertakes to furnish a copy of the same to the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day.

If necessary, learned counsel for the petitioner may examine the reply of respondent No.2 and file the rejoinder within two weeks.

List immediately after two weeks.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.9497 of 2008.

List immediately after two weeks.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.9493 of 2008.

It is pointed out by the learned G. A. that most probabily respondent No.3 is not served with the notice, though he is impleaded as party by name.

Office record indicated that notice of this writ petition was prepared to be issued to the respondent No.3 through District Judge, Katni but the same was never issued by the office.

Registrar (J) to ensure for issuance of said notice to the respondent No.3 immediately and to further ensure that same is served on the respondent No.3 by the next date.

Let this matter be posed for hearing on 6th of April, 2015.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.12791 of 2009.

10.03.2015 Shri S. D. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc WRIT PETITION No.3998/2005 10.03.2015 None for the petitioner.

Shri J.K. Pillai, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. The order-sheet dated 27.11.2014 clearly prescribes that last opportunity was granted to learned Counsel for the petitioner to file reply to I.A. No.7669/2010, an application for vacating stay, moved by the respondent No.2 with clear stipulation that in case reply of the I.A. aforesaid is not filed, the mat- ter would be heard on the said I.A. Yet another opportunity was granted on 02.03.2015 to file the reply as a prayer for adjournment was made. Still no reply to the I.A. aforesaid has been filed.

By filing the aforesaid I.A. it is contended that since the order impugned in the present writ petition is appellable order, which appeal was never preferred by the petitioner, in fact no interim stay is required to be granted to the petitioner. Even otherwise the order was rightly passed under Section 14(b) and 7(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and, there- fore, entire action taken by respondent No.2 is just and proper.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances and keeping in view that none is present on behalf of the petitioner to prosecute this writ petition, the interim order dated 06.06.2005 is vacated.

Let the matter be posted after two weeks for hearing on admission.

(K.K. Trivedi) Judge Skc Lateron at 2.30 p. m.:

Shri Sudeep Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioner appeared and stated that through the order was dictated but is not signed, therefore a prayer is made that instead of keeping this petition pending for hearing on admission the same may be disposed of finally with liberty to the petitioner to assail the order of penalty impugned in the present writ petition before the appellate authority.

Such a submission is made only because an objection is raised by the respondent by filing a reply to the writ petition that the order impugned is nothing but consequential order of the original order passed by the authorities under the provisions of Section 7 (A) of the Act and said order was never called in question anywhere, thus the same has attained finality. Other objection is availability of statutory remedy of appeal against the order impugned in the writ petition.

It is contended by the learned counsel present in the Court for respondent No.2 that the relief as claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted unless the original order is set aside. Since, the original order is not challenged in appropriate manner, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

After considering the rival submission of the counsel of the parties, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to resort to the remedy of appeal against the order impugned before the competent appellate authority of the respondent within a month from today. If such an appeal is filed along with an application for condonation of delay taking the plea of pendency of this petition before this Court, the appellate authority will condon the delay and will decide the appeal of the petitioner on its own merits. Needless to say the grounds raised in the appeal are to be specific and in terms of the law and not otherwise. It will be open to the appellate authority to exercise its power of waiver of quantum of penalty in appropriate manner in case any specific ground is substantiated by the petitioner. Let this exercise be completed within six months from the date of filing of the appeal.

With the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of finally. C. C. as per rules.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.12545-08 11.03.2015 Shri,Harish Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned P. L. for respondent. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that writ petition has rendered infructuous by efflux of time, The writ petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.12567-08 11.03.2015 Shri Mukesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned P. L. for respondent. As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.

( K.K. Trivedi ) Judge kkc W.P. No.172-15 11.03.2015.

Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer, for the respondent/ State.

Shri Aditya Khandekar, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

Looking to the controversy involved in the writ petition, instead of hearing the prayer for grant of interim stay at this stage, since the returns have been filed by the private respondents, let the matter be posted for hearing on 17th of March 2015 on top of the list for final disposal.

(K.K.Trivedi) JUDGE kkc W.P. No.5309-14 11.03.2015.

None present for the petitioner, when the matter was called in the first round, however, the matter was passed over for the purposes of granting an opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

None present for the petitioner even when the case was called in second round.