Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunder Lal Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 July, 2015
29/07/2015 .
None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Adjourned.
(S.K. GANGELE)
JUDGE
MISHRA
W.P. No. 11640/2011.
29/07/2015 .
Parties through their counsel.
The petition has already been admitted for
hearing, it be listed for final hearing.
(S.K. GANGELE)
JUDGE
MISHRA
W.P. No. 11287/2009.
29/07/2015 .
Parties through their counsel.
The petition has already been admitted for
hearing, it be listed for final hearing.
(S.K. GANGELE)
JUDGE
MISHRA
Con C. No. 2133/2012.
23/07/2015 .
Parties through their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that this contempt petition has to be heard by Division Bench.
Office to verify the same and proceed further.
(S.K. GANGELE)
JUDGE
MISHRA
W.P. No. 16822./2013.
20/07/2015 .
List in the next week as prayed by learned
counsel for the petitioner.
(S.K. GANGELE)
JUDGE
MISHRA
M.C.C. No. 1732/2015.
20/07/2015 .
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
Heard on I.A. No. 7974/2015, an application
for condonation of delay of 109 days in filing the
present MCC. For the reasons stated in the I.A., the
same is allowed and disposed of. Delay is condoned.
This application is filed for restoration of M.A.
No. 849of 2014 which was dismissed for non
compliance of peremptory order dated 06/02/2015.
Looking to the facts mentioned in the
application, subject to depositing cost of Rs. 500/- in
the office of High Court Legal Services Committee, the
same is allowed. The aforesaid miscellaneous appeal is
restored to its file. Office to proceed further.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
(S.K. GANGELE)
JUDGE
MISHRA
W.P. 6350/2010.
20/07/2015 .
Parties through their counsel.
List after a week as prayed by learned
counsel for the parties.
(S.K. GANGELE)
JUDGE
MISHRA
W.P. 15361/2014.
20/07/2015 .
Parties through their counsel.
List alongwith W.P. No. 172/2015 in the next
week.
(S.K. GANGELE)
JUDGE
MISHRA
W.P. No. 6004/2002.
15/07/2015 .
None for the petitioner.
Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents/State.
The petition is of the year 2002, hence it is finally disposed of by this order.
The petitioner has filed this petition against the order Annexure P/6 passed by the Additional Collector Mandla, respondent no. 2.
One Gangiya Markam earlier who was working as Aanganwadi worker of the Village Gundlai resigned from the post, the Gram Panchayat invited applications for appointment to the post of Aanganwadi Worker. The petitioner and other persons applied to the post and the Gram Panchayat rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was not local resident of Village Gundlai. She was residing at Mahua Tola and only her husband was coming from there to run a shop of Gundlai village. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5 was appointed on the post of Aanganwadi Worker vide appointment order dated 28/12/1998. The petitioner challenged her non- selection in an appeal filed before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector dismissed the appeal after holding that the petitioner was not resident of that area and the respondent was more qualified.
Looking to the aforesaid facts in my opinion no illegality has been committed by the authority in passing the impugned order. I do not find any merit in this petition, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA W.P. No. 927/2014.
15/07/2015 .
Shri Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 4.
Heard on admission. Because the dispute in this petition in regard to framing of issue and the suit is of eviction, with the consent of the parties petition is disposed of at the motion hearing stage.
The petitioner who is defendant has challenged the order dated 19/12/2013 in regard to amendment in the issue no. 4 framed by the trial court. The trial court partly allowed the application filed by the defendant and amended issue no. 4 is to the effect that " D;k iz f roknh us oknhx.k dz 0 2 ls 4 ds cknxz L r ifjlj ds LoRoks a ls ba d kj fd;k gS A ".
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue which would be amended is that whether there exists landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff nos. 2 to 4 and defendant. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection in this regard.
In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the amendment in issue no.
4 be read as " D;k oknh ,oa iz f roknh dz 0 2 ls 4 ds e?; edkuekfyd ,oa fdjk;s n kj ds la c a / k gS a vFkok ugha A " The effect shall be considered by the trial court at the time of final hearing.
The petition is disposed of accordingly. Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA W.P. No. 7893/2015.
14/07/2015 .
Shri Nitin Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri B.P. Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
The petitioner has filed this petition against the order of transfer Annexure P/2 dated 21/05/2015. By the aforesaid order the petitioner who is working as employment officer has been transferred from District Employment Office, Balaghat to District Employment Office, Narsinghpur on his own request. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not made any request in regard to his transfer. The petitioner has already submitted a representation to the competent authority in this regard. Copy of the representation dated 21/05/2015 has been filed as Annexure P/5 along with the petition.
In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the competent authority shall decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Upto that period, the petitioner be permitted to continue at the present place of posting as District Employment Officer Balaghat. No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA W.P. No. 10929/2015.
14/07/2015 .
Shri R.K. Verma, learned senior counsel with Shri S. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri B.P. Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
This petition has been filed against the order of transfer dated 21/05/2015 Annexure P/2. By the aforesaid order the petitioner who is working as Employment Officer has been transferred from District Employment Office, Narsinghpur to Mandsaur on administrative ground. He challenged the order of transfer in a writ petition which was registered as W.P. No. 8115/2015. This court vide order dated 26/06/2015 disposed of the writ petition with the following directions.
"In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner files a certified copy of the order passed today along with the copy of the petition before the concerned authority within two weeks from today, the said authority shall consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with the transfer policy preferably within a period of six weeks thereafter. The petitioner would also be at liberty to move an application seeking stay of the order of transfer under para 14 of the Transfer Policy. In view of the fact that the transfer order of the person, who has to replace the petitioner has been stayed by this Court, the operation of the impugned order dated 21.05.2015 so far as it relates to the petitioner shall remain stayed.
However, it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore, the authority concerned while deciding the petitioner's representation would be at liberty to take into consideration all facts and facets of the case and thereafter take a decision thereon in accordance with law."
Thereafter, in regard to some grievances, the petitioner has filed this another petition. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance to the order passed by this Court on 26/06/2015 passed in W.P. No. 8115/2015, the petitioner was not given time to submit representation and the order Annexure P/9 has been passed. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition. In my opinion the present petition is not maintainable in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 8115/2015 dated 26/06/2015, it is hereby dismissed. If the directions issued by this Court has not been complied with, the petitioner is at liberty to file contempt petition.
The writ petition is finally disposed of accordingly.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA W.P. No. 10953/2015.
14/07/2015 .
Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri B.P. Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the grievance of the petitioners is in regard to grant of two advance increments in lieu of passing B.Ed. & D.Ed., examination on their own expenses has already been decided by this Court in W.P. No 10536/2011 (S) and the SLP filed against the aforesaid order has also been dismissed. Hence, this petition be disposed of with a direction to the authorities to decide the representation of the petitioners.
In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of and it is directed that petitioners shall file a representation in this regard along with the order passed by this Court within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the competent authority shall consider the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order along with representation of the petitioners and if the petitioners are found eligible to receive two advance increments on account of passing B.Ed. & D.Ed examination on their own expenses, the same may be granted to the petitioners also. No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA W.P. No. 4549/2010.
14/07/2015 .
Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vikram Johri, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
The petition is listed for admission however, the return has been filed, arguments have been heard on merits and looking to the nature of the case that the petitioner is a dailyrated employee working for the last 25 years, the petition is disposed of finally with the consent of the parties at motion hearing stage itself.
The petitioner has filed this petition against the orders dated 30/08/89 and 06/03/2010 Annexure P/5 & P/12 by which the services of the petitioner were terminated.
The petitioner was appointed as Vansevak untrained as daily rated worker on muster roll vide order dated 23/07/1989 thereafter vide order dated 30/08/1989 the order of appointment of the petitioner was cancelled then he filed petition before the State Administrative Tribunal which was registered as O.A. No. 2527/1989 against the order of termination. The Tribunal vide order dated 30/09/89 admitted the petition and further observed that the applicants therein shall be allowed to continue at present in service, thereafter, he was continued in service. The aforesaid application O.A. No. 2527/89 was dismissed vide order dated 13/11/1995 because nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the tribunal. As per the respondents, the aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of the department on 23/01/2010 when the department obtained the certified copy of the order, thereafter the impugned order of termination of service was passed. The copy of the order passed in O.A. No. 2527/89 has been filed. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in service since 1989 and this Court passed stay order in favour of the petitioner on 01/04/2010. The petitioner was given the revised pay scale vide Annexure P/10.
In this view of the matter, in my opinion, it would not be just and proper to discontinue the services of the petitioner consequently, the petition is allowed, the impugned orders dated 30/08/89 and 06/03/2010 Annexure P/5 & P/12 are hereby quashed. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that other persons have been regularized who are working as LDC. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the order dated 06/03/3010, if he wants to get any other relief, he is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings.
The petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA W.P. No. 3988/2010.
14/07/2015 .
Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vikram Johri, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
The petition is listed for admission however, the return has been filed, arguments have been heard on merits and looking to the nature of the case that the petitioner is a dailyrated employee working for the last 25 years, the petition is disposed of finally with the consent of the parties at motion hearing stage itself.
The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 06/03/2010 Annexure P/15 by which the services of the petitioner were terminated.
The petitioner was appointed as Vansevak untrained as daily rated worker on muster roll vide order dated 23/07/1989 thereafter vide order dated 30/08/1989 the order of appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. Some persons filed petition before the State Administrative Tribunal which was registered as O.A. No. 2527/1989 against the order of termination. The Tribunal admitted the petition and further observed that the applicants therein shall be allowed to continue in service, then the petitioner was permitted to continue to work. Thereafter, the aforesaid application O.A. No. 2527/89 was dismissed vide order dated 13/11/1995 as per the respondents, the aforesaid fact came to the knowledge of the department on 23/01/2010 when the department obtained the certified copy of the order, thereafter the impugned order was passed terminating the service of the petitioner. The copy of the order of O.A. No. 2527/89 has been filed in another case W.P. No. 4549/2010. The aforesaid petition was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 13/11/1995 because nobody appeared before the tribunal. However, in this petition, the petitioner was not a party before the Tribunal. The fact remains that the petitioner has been in service since 1989 and this Court passed stay order in favour of the petitioner on 01/04/2010. The petitioner was given the revised pay scale vide Annexure P/9.
In this view of the matter the order of termination of services of the petitioner vide annexure P/15 dated 06/03/2010 is not proper, it is hereby quashed. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that other persons have been regularized who are working as LDC. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the order dated 06/03/3010, if he wants to get any other relief, he is at liberty to file appropriate proceedings.
With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA M.A. No. 735/2015.
13/07/2015 .
Ms. Sneh Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Sanjay Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
This appeal has been filed against the order dated 05/03/2015 passed by the Commissioner Workmen Compensation Adhiniyam under the provision of Employees Compensation Act, 1923. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the workman was not employed by the appellants neither the appellants had given any contract to the contractor as mentioned by the Court in the impugned award. It is further submitted by the counsel that the deceased person had consumed liquor and he was died due to his own negligence. The aforesaid point negativated in the impugned order dated 05/03/2010. The Labour Court has held that the deceased was employed as a workman during the period of accident. He was died when he was on duty. After considering the facts of the case, claims tribunal awarded the compensation. A criminal case was also registered against the contractor to whom the present appellants had given work on contract. As per the evidence, the deceased was working in gelatin factory of the appellants and he was fixing some seats on the roof, at that time he fell down from the above roof and died. The Court has considered all the evidence in detailed and recorded the aforesaid findings on the basis of the evidence documentary and oral. In my opinion the findings recorded by the Court are in accordance with Section 12 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The Principle is liable to pay compensation and he shall be indemnified by the contractor. In this view of the matter, in my opinion the labour court has passed just the proper award. No case is made out for interference.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA W.P. No. 5986/2014.
13/07/2015 .
Shri Ajay Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vikram Johri, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State.
Shri L.S. Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Lavkush Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.
4. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order passed by the Collector and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 02/04/2014. The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, though the application of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the requirement of appointment that his name be included in the voter list of the area. The relevant provision which was necessary for appointment to the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak reads as under:-
^vH;FkhZ dk vkos f nr xz k e ia p k;r dk LFkkuh; fuoklh gks u k pkfg, A LFkkuh; fuoklh gs r q vkos n d dk uke ml xz k e ia p k;r dh Hkkjr fuokZ p u dh ernkrk lw p h es a ia t hc) gks u k vfuok;Z ,oa i;kZ I r gS A fdlh xz k e ia p k;r es a 03 ls de LFkkuh; fuoklh vH;FkhZ }kjk vkos n u fn;s tkus dh fLFkfr es a la c a f /kr xz k e ia p k;r dh lhek ls yxs xz k e ia pk;rks a ds LFkkuh; fuoklh ds vkos n uks a dks Hkh fopkj {ks = es a fy;k tkos x k A* Both the Collector and Additional Commissioner has recorded concurrent findings that the petitioner did not produce the voter list to substantiate his claim that his name was included in the voter list of the Gram Panchayat. It has specifically been mentioned by the revisional authority that the petitioner admitted the fact that due to some mistake he could not produce the copy of voter list at the time of submission of the application. It has been submitted that in the voter list the name of the petitioner was included however, this fact has been controverted by the respondent no. 4. Along with the reply filed by the respondent no. 4 a copy of voter list of gram panchayat- Padkhuri has been filed. In the aforesaid list the name of the petitioner was deleted. Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case in my opinion no interference can be called for in this writ petition because the petitioner did not fulfill the mandatory requirement at the time of submission of his application. In my opinion both the courts have rightly held that the candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected, I do not find any merit in this petition, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA M.C.C. No. 1864/2015.
13/07/2015 .
Shri N.K. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
This application is filed for restoration of W.P. No. 10393 of 2015 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 07/07/2015.
Looking to the facts mentioned in the application, subject to depositing cost of Rs. 250/- in the office of High Court Legal Services Committee, the same is allowed. The aforesaid writ petition is restored to its file. Office to proceed further.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA W.P. No. 9386/15 Shri Rahul Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
The petitioners who are defendants have filed this petition against the order dated 15.05.2015 by which the appeal filed by the respondent/ plaintiff in regard to grant of injunction has been allowed.
The respondent No. 1 / plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and for setting aside the sale deed in regard to an agriculture land. In the trial court the case of the defendants was that the defendants have purchased the suit land by a registered sale deed in the year 1985 and thereafter the name of the defendants was also mutated in the year 2005, since than they are in possession of the suit land. The trial court dismissed the injunction application filed by the plaintiff, however, the appellate court allowed the injunction application. The appellate Court has observed that the sale deed was executed in the year 1985, however, the defendants had not taken any steps to get mutation upto the period of 20 years and the mutation was ordered in the year 2005. As per the revenue records (Khasra entries) the possession of the plaintiff was recorded on the suit land since 1985 to 2005. The appellate Court further observed that the defendant had taken the land of the plaintiff who are villager and dismissed the application for injunction.
Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case, in my opinion the order passed by the appellate court is in accordance with the law. No error has been committed by the appellate court in exercise of jurisdiction. Hence, no interference is called for in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.
07/07/2015 .
Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Manoj Kushwah, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Petitioner has challenged the order of transfer Annexure P/1 dated 10/06/2015. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner who is working as Upper Division Teacher has been transferred from Government Middle School, Bamhanwada, Block Lakhnadaon, District Seoni to Government Middle School, Bhajia, Block Lakhnadaon, District Seoni.
It is contended by the petitioner that he is not posted at Bamhanwada, at present he is posted at Government Middle School Selua. He was transferred from Bamhanwada to Selua vide Annexure P/2 dated 25/07/2013. Hence, there is no question of transfer of the petitioner by the impugned order annexure P/1 from Government Middle School, Bamhanwada, Block Lakhnadaon, District Seoni to Government Middle School, Bhajia, Block Lakhnadaon, District Seoni.
In this view of the matter this petition is disposed of with a direction that the competent authority shall decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and upto that period petitioner be permitted to continue at Government Middle School Selua, District Seoni.
The Petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA wpno.942815 07/07/2015 .
Shri Ramnaresh Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a limited prayer in deciding the petition. It is submitted by the counsel that they have already been submitted a representation in regard to their grievances and the competent authority be directed to decide the representation of the petitioners.
In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of finally with a direction that the competent authority shall decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is clarified that this court has not expressed any opinion about the merits of the case. The authority is at liberty to take decision in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Certified copy as per rules.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA WP-10164-2015 (DEEPAK SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 06-07-2015 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Manoj Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
This petition is filed in regard to provide police protection to the petitioners. As per the petitioner, they are major and they have married to each other on 25/05/2015. However, they have been harassing on account of their love marriage. To substantiate their date of birth they filed photocopy of their marksheets of High School. In accordance with the aforesaid mark-sheet the date of birth of petitioner No. 1 is 14/01/1981 and the date of birth of petitioner No. 2 is 10/11/1993.
Looking to the photocopy of marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir is also filed in this petition, it is directed to the Police Authority to provide the protection to the petitioners in the event of harassment on account of marriage after verification of the documents.
With the aforesaid observation, this petition is disposed of accordingly.
C.C. as per rules.
MISHRA (S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MA-3960-2008 (SMT.BRAJLATA Vs UNION OF INDIA) 06-07-2015 Shri Abhay Jain, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for the respondent.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal Bench in claim case No. O.A. No281/2004 is listed for admission.
Learned counsel for the appellants raised a limited point for admission to the extent of payment of interest. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the claims tribunal awarded the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of application till realization, however it would be @ 9% per annum. In support of his contention learned counsel relied upon the following judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Mohamadi and others Vs. Union of India 2011 ACJ 2356, where the Supreme Court awarded the interest @ 9% per annum.
In this view of the matter with the consent of the parties the appeal is disposed of finally. The supreme Court in the aforecited judgment in paras 2 to 5 has held as under:-
" 2. This appeal raises a very limited issue as to the day from which interest would accrue on the amount of compensation under Section 124- A of the Railways Act, 1989. the Tribunal directed that the compensation amount would carry interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from 25.05.1995 i.e. the date of the applicant till its payment to the claimant. On appeal the High Court modified the Tribunal's order and directed that interest would commence not from the date of the application but from the date of the judgment of the Tribunal, which was passed on 2.12.2002.
3. The counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in Tahazhathe Purayil Sarabi V. Union of India, 2009 ACJ 2444 (SC), under similar circumstances, the court held that the interest would accrue on the compensation amount from the date of the claim application. Learned counsel particularly relied upon paras 23 and 24 of the judgment.
4. We find that the point is well taken and it is supported by the decision of this court in Tajazhathe purayil Sarabi, 2009 ACJ 2444 (SC).
5. We, accordingly, set aside the order of the High Court and restore the Tribunal's order in regard to the accrual of the interest with effect from the date of the application".
In view of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court, this appeal is allowed to the extent that in place of 6% interest awarded by the tribunal, the appellants shall be entitled for the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application upto the realization. The impugned award is modified accordingly. No order as to costs.
MISHRA (S.K. GANGELE)
JUDGE
M.C.C. No. 1715/2015.
06/07/2015 .
Shri S.C. Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicants.
Heard on I.A. No. 7878/2015, an application for condonation of delay of 55 days in filing the present MCC. For the reasons stated in the I.A., the same is allowed and disposed of. Delay is condoned.
This application is filed for restoration of W.P. No. 7632of 2009 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 31/03/2015.
Looking to the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The aforesaid writ petition is restored to its file. Office to proceed further.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA M.C.C. No. 912/2015.
03/07/2015 .
Shri Devdatt Bhave, learned counsel for the applicant.
This application is filed for restoration of second appeal No. 225 of 2007 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 24/03/2015.
Looking to the facts mentioned in the application, subject to depositing cost of Rs. 500/- in the office of High Court Legal Services Committee, the same is allowed. The aforesaid second appeal is restored to its file. Office to proceed further.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA M.C.C. No. 815/2015.
03/07/2015 .
Shri R.S. Jaiswal, learned Senior Advocate with Shri R.M. Sharma learned counsel for the applicants.
This application is filed for restoration of second appeal No. 693of 2008 which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 25/03/2015.
Looking to the facts mentioned in the application, subject to depositing cost of Rs. 500/- in the office of High Court Legal Services Committee, the same is allowed. The aforesaid second appeal is restored to its file. Office to proceed further.
Application is disposed of accordingly.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA W.P. No.7198/2007.
03/07/2015 .
Shri Ravindra Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.P. Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4/State.
Shri Ajay Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 11.
In this petition, the petitioner has challenged a notification annexure P/2. By the aforesaid notification certain seats have been reserved for the purpose of election of District Panchayat Anooppur which was for the year 2004. Thereafter, the elections have already been held and the persons have already been elected. There is no stay granted by this Court and the period of elected representatives has already been expired.
In this view of the matter, this petition has become infructuous, it is dismissed accordingly.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA W.P. No.13668/2009.
03/07/2015 .
Shri Ravindra Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.P. Singh, learned Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 1& 3 /State.
Ms. Ruchika Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.
In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the reservation of constituencies of wards of District- Anooppur which was for the year 2009. Thereafter, the elections have already been held and the persons have already been elected in pursuance to the reservation that period has already been over.
In this view of the matter, this petition has become infructuous, it is dismissed accordingly.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA //2015 .
Shri learned counsel for the Shri for the respondents/State.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA