Madhya Pradesh High Court
Maharani Laxmibai Mahila ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 March, 2015
W.P.No.19931/2014
04.03.2015
Parties through their respective counsel.
Mr.Manish Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Office is directed to submit service report with
regard to service of notice on respondent Nos.5 to 8.
In the meanwhile, interim order granted on
earlier occasion shall continue till next date of
hearing.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.18576/2014
04.03.2015
Parties through their respective counsel.
Mr.Sumanta Bhattacharya, learned counsel for
the respondent prays for and is granted a week's time
in order to enable him to argue the case.
As prayed, let writ petition be listed after one
week.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.19136/2014
04.03.2015
Parties through their respective counsel.
Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate
for the respondents prays for and is granted four
weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.18444/2014
04.03.2015
Parties through their respective counsel.
Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate
for the respondents prays for and is granted two
weeks' time in order to enable him to submit the
compliance report with regard to provisions of section
17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.17384/2014
04.03.2015
Parties through their respective counsel.
Mr.Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to
file an affidavit disclosing whether or not Maiher is
hometown of the petitioner.
Let affidavit be filed in this regard within a week
from today.
In addition, the petitioner would be at liberty to
file a rejoinder, if so advised.
As prayed, let writ petition be listed on
16.03.2015.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.16748/2014
04.03.2015
Parties through their respective counsel.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
Mr.Shobhit Aditya, learned counsel for the
respondent No.3 prays for and is granted a week's time
to file the return.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall
continue till next date of hearing.
`(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.15388/2014
04.03.2015
Parties through their respective counsel.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time
to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.13876/2014
04.03.2015
Parties through their respective counsel.
Mr.R.K.Verma, learned Senior Counsel with
Mr.Sourabh Shrivastava counsel for the petitioner.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
Let the I.A.No.15144/2014 be listed for
consideration before DBI.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.13580/2014
04.03.2015
Parties through their respective counsel.
Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents has supplied copy of I.A.No.104/2015 to
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and
is granted short adjournment in order to enable him to
go through the same and to file the reply.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for
consideration of aforesaid I.A. after a week.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.12451/2014
04.03.2015
Parties through their respective counsel.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time
to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.11573/2014
04.03.2015
Parties through their respective counsel.
Mr.B.S.Thakur, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of
this Court to withdraw I.A.No.12054/2014 with the
liberty to file a fresh application.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in next
week.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.3039/2015
04.03.2015
Mr.S.C.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as
interim relief.
On payment of process fee by registered post
with acknowledgement due within a week, issue
notice of this writ petition on merit as well as
interim relief to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
this writ petition be heard along with
W.P.Nos.1692/2015, 1696/2015 and 1693/2015.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for
analogous hearing along with W.P.Nos.1692/2015,
1696/2015 and 1693/2015.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.2420/2015
04.03.2015
Mr.O.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr.S.Patel, learned Panel Lawyer for the
caveator.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of
this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the
liberty to file an election petition under Section 122 of
the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Evam Swaraj
Adhiniyam, 1993.
In view of aforesaid submission, the writ
petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as
aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.2162/2015
04.03.2015
Mr.Atul Anand Awasthy, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents.
Heard on the question of admission as well as
interim relief.
On payment of process fee by registered post
with acknowledgement due within a week, issue
notice of this writ petition on merit as well as
interim relief to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
91 posts of Stenographer were advertised. The
petitioner was placed at Sr.No.34 and he has
submitted all the documents which have been
verified by the authorities, however, the order of
appointment is not being issued in favour of the
petitioner. It is further submitted that writ petition
involving similar issue has been entertained and
interim order has been granted. In support of
aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the
petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to
order dated 16.02.2015 passed in
W.P.No.2165/2014.
In view of aforesaid submission and with a view
to maintain parity, it is directed that one post of
stenographer shall be kept vacant till next date of
hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.2165/2015
04.03.2015
Parties through their respective counsel.
Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time
to file the return.
In the meanwhile, interim order granted on
earlier occasion shall continue till next date of
hearing.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.1564/2015
04.03.2015
Parties through their respective counsel.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for
analogous hearing along with W.P.No.1565/2015.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.437/2015
04.03.2015
Mr.R.S.Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the
writ petition with the liberty to file an appeal under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
In view of aforesaid submission, office is directed
to return the certified copy of the impugned award
dated 08.08.2014 to the learned counsel for the
petitioner on substitution thereof by its photocopy.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.203/2015
04.03.2015
Mr.Sourabh Tiwari, learned counsel for the
petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the
writ petition with the liberty to challenge the order
dated 31.10.2014 in civil revision, in view of the law
laid down in the case of Shri Sawal Singh Vs.
Ramsakhi and Others reported in 2002 (4) MPHT
200.
In view of aforesaid submission, office is directed
to return the certified copy of the impugned order to
the learned counsel for the petitioner on substitution
thereof by its photocopy.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.15745/2014
04.03.2015
Mr.K.K.Kushwaha, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
For the reasons stated in the order dated
28.11.2014, no orders are required to be passed on
I.A.No.13799/2014, an application for amendment of
the writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.15393/2014
04.03.2015
Parties through their respective counsel.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
Mr.J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the
respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time
to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
W.P.No.4395/2009
04.03.2015
Mr.Arun Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
03.03.2015
None for the parties.
(Alok Aradhe)
Judge
a/rk
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
Second Appeal No.329/1999
Smt.Vimla Singh & Others..................... Appellant
Versus
Dilip Kumar and Others ....................... Respondent
For the appellant : Mr.Aishwarya Sahu, Advocate
For the respondent :Mr.R.K.Sanghi, Advocate
Present : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Alok Aradhe
_______________________________________________
JUDGEMENT
(03.03.2015) This appeal is by the tenants, who have suffered a decree of eviction from both the Courts.
The appeal was admitted by a Bench of this Court on the following substantial questions of law: (1). Whether the Courts below committed error in holding that the appellants were not entitled to protect their possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act ?
(2). Whether, the Courts below committed error in recording a finding that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim eviction on the ground of disclaimer of title and nonpayment of return.
Fact giving rise to filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction, inter alia, on the ground that they had purchased the suit house by registered sale deed dated 18.04.1979 (Ex.P/1) for a consideration of Rs.19,000/ and had acquired title in respect of the suit house. A portion of the suit house was occupied by the tenants. By operation of law, the tenants of the predecessor in title of the plaintiffs became tenants of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that after execution of the sale deed, though other tenants started paying rent to the plaintiffs, however, the original defendants did not pay any rent to the plaintiffs and asserted that he is owner of the suit accommodation. Accordingly, the suit was filed seeking eviction under Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
The original defendant filed the written statement in which the claim of the plaintiffs was denied. It was pleaded that Vishwanath Prasad Tiwari had executed an agreement in the year, 1975 in favour of original defendant in respect of the suit accommodation and later on, his son executed a sale deed dated 08.12.1980 (Ex.D/2) in favour of the defendants and the original defendant is in possession of the suit house as owner thereof. It was further pleaded that the original defendant is in possession of the suit house since 1966 and plaintiffs got a sale deed dated 18.04.1979 executed in the state of intoxication. The relationship of landlord and tenant was also denied.
The trial court after framing issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and decreed the suit. The aforesaid decree was affirmed in appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Courts below ought to have appreciated that the original defendant was entitled to benefit of the agreement (Ex.D/1), in view of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It was further submitted that Courts below grossly erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs on the ground of disclaimer of title and on account of nonpayment of rent.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the decree passed by Courts below and have submitted that the matter stands concluded by concurrent findings of fact.
I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of the para1 of the written statement, it is evident that after the execution of the agreement (Ex.D/1) in the year 1975, Santosh Prasad Tiwari executed a sale deed dated 08.12.1980 (Ex.D/2) in favour of defendants and on the strength of the sale deed, the defendants have denied title of the plaintiffs and had set up the title in himself. Since, the sale deed (Ex.D/2) was already executed, therefore, the question protection of the possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, does not arise. In view of pleading of the original defendant in para1 of the written statement and statement made by him in para4 of his evidence, the first substantial question of law framed by a Bench of this Court in the facts of the case, does not arise. Accordingly, the same is answered.
Admittedly, the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiffs dated 18.04.1979 is prior in point of time. The original defendant had purchased the tenanted premises by a subsequent sale deed (Ex.D/2) dated 08.12.1980, when the title had already passed on to the plaintiffs. The original defendant in para12 of his evidence had stated that initially he had taken the premises on rent from predecessor in title of the plaintiffs i.e. Vishwanath Prasad Tiwari on a monthly rent of Rs.90 and had paid the rent to him. Thus, it is evident that the original defendant was in occupation of the suit premises as tenant. On execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiffs by Late Vishwanath Prasad Tiwari the defendant by operation of law became tenant of the plaintiffs. Despite, receipt of notice demanding arrears of rent dated 08.08.1980 (Ex.P/6), the original defendant did not tender the arrears of rent. From conjoint reading of averments made in para1 of the written statement as well as para4 of the evidence, it is evident that the original defendant denied the title of the plaintiffs and set up the title in himself on the strength of the sale deed (Ex.D/2). Thus, both the Courts below rightly held that grounds for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, were made out. The Courts below have not committed any error in decreeing the suit on the ground under Section 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the second substantial question of law framed by a Bench of this Court, is answered in the negative and in favour of the plaintiffs.
In the result, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.346/2003 03.03.2015 None for the appellant.
Mr.J.K.Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.329/1999 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.1283/2000 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.1282/2000 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.1233/2000 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.1165/2000 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.1071/2000 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.997/2000 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.882/2000 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.1086/1999 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.1441/1999 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.821/1999 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.482/1999 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.402/2005 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.854/2004 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.853/2004 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.35/2004 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.1063/2003 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.989/2003 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.346/2003 02.03.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk W.P.No.15864/2007 03.03.2015 None for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round .
It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.18099/2010 03.03.2015 None for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round .
It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.18696/2010 03.03.2015 None for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round .
It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2013/2015 03.03.2015 Mr.Mahesh Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that since a first information report has been lodged against the petitioner, he be granted the liberty to file a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In view of aforesaid submission, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty to the petitioner to file a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to agitate his grievance.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2055/2015 03.03.2015 Mr.Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2180/2015 03.03.2015 Mr.V.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 16.02.2015, he has filed the documents on 27.02.2015. However, the same are not on record.
Office is directed to trace the same and place it on record.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 04.03.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2180/2015 03.03.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2484/2015 03.03.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Heard on I.A.No.2192/2015, an application for amendment in the writ petition.
For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be incorporated by 4 t h March, 2015.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.13839/2014 03.03.2015 Mr.O.P.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he be granted the liberty to approach Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education for correction of surname, as mentioned in the marksheet.
In view of aforesaid submission, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner files an application before the Board of Secondary Education for correction of surname in marksheet, the same shall be dealt with by the Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education expeditiously in accordance with law.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.15337/2014 03.03.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the reply.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2307/2014 03.03.2015 Mr.V.Badoria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to challenge the impugned order in appeal, if an occasion so arises.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.1610/2014 03.03.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Amit Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted short adjournment in order to enable him to file rejoinder as well as reply to application for vacating stay.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.17734/2012 03.03.2015 Mr.Abhay Pandey on behalf of Mr.Vikram Singh learned counsel for the petitioner prays for short adjournment.
As prayed, list the case in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.161/2015 03.03.2015 Ms.Smita Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A.No.2036/2015, an application for amendment in the writ petition.
For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be incorporated within a period of three days.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.17012/2014 03.03.2015 List along with W.P.No.15363/2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.17008/2014 03.03.2015 List along with W.P.No.15363/2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.16159/2014 03.03.2015 List along with W.P.No.15363/2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.17353/2014 03.03.2015 Mr.Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.Chandrahas Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.3 to 6.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 12.08.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue by which the Board of Revenue has set aside the order passed by Additional Collector as well as Additional Commissioner.
Fact giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the respondents had filed the application for mutation before the Tehsildar, which was allowed vide order dated 26.07.2008. Admittedly, in the proceeding for mutation, the petitioners were not impleaded as parties. The petitioners came to know about the aforesaid order on 12.01.2009 and, thereafter they filed an application on 27.01.2009, the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 08.06.2009 allowed the application and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for decision afresh.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondents filed revision before the Additional Collector, which was dismissed on 26.09.2009. The respondents also filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner which was also dismissed vide order dated 22.01.2014. Thereafter, the respondents filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which has been dismissed vide order dated 12.08.2014.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by Board of Revenue suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record. It ought to have been appreciated that since the petitioners were not parties to the proceeding for mutation, therefore, they had filed an application within the period of 15 days from the date of knowledge. It is further submitted that in the matter of condonation of delay the authorities are required to take a liberal view.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has supported the order passed by the Board of Revenue.
I have considered the submissions made on both side. Admittedly, the petitioners were not parties to the proceeding for mutation which was initiated by respondent Nos.1 and 2, in the application for condonation of delay, the petitioners have stated that they came to know about order passed by the Tehsildar on 12.01.2009. The discretion to condone the delay, which was only of 15 days was exercised properly by the SubDivisional Officer and the same was affirmed by the Additional Commissioner as well as the the Additional Collector.
The Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Sub Divisional Officer and in interfering with concurrent findings of the fact recorded by the authorities. The order passed by Board of Revenue suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record and while passing the order, the Board of Revenue has exceeded its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the order passed by the Board of Revenue is hereby quashed, and the order passed by the SubDivisional Officer is upheld. The Tehsildar shall shall afford the opportunity of hearing to petitioner as well as respondent Nos.1 and 2 and all necessary parties and shall pass a fresh order on the application for mutation in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.15361/2014 03.03.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Heard on I.A.No.16207/2014, an application for vacating stay.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by notification dated 26.07.1999, the power under Section 50A(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, have been delegated to the Assistant Registrar and, therefore, the Assistant Registrar had the authority to initiate the proceeding under Section 50A(2) of the Act.
In view of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for short adjournment in order to enable him to seek instruction in this regard.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for consideration of application for vacating stay in next week.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.13096/2007(S) 03.03.2015 Mr.V.Bhide, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajas Pohankar, learned counsel for the respondents.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, has challenged the validity of the order dated 14.08.2007 by which the petitioner has once again been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer, whereas, the petitioner was already promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer and his services were regularized w.e.f. 17.05.2000.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the writ petition involving similar issue has already been decided by learned Single Judge by order dated 28.02.2006 passed in W.P.No.108/2006. The aforesaid order was upheld in appeal by the Division Bench of Indore of this Court in W.P.No.86/2006, against which the respondents have preferred Special Leave Petition, namely, SLP No.13261/2007 which has been entertained and is pending adjudication before the Supreme Court. The aforesaid aspect of the matter is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents. In view of decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Suresh Chandra Jain , 2004(1) MPWN Note (107), no useful purpose would be served by keeping the instant writ petition pending. Accordingly, the same is disposed of with the direction that the result of the present petition shall be governed by the decision which may be rendered by the Supreme Court in SLP No.13261/2007.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is stand disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk 03.03.2015 For the reasons assigned in W.P.No.13096/2007, the instant writ petition is disposed of on similar terms and with same directions.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.13096/2007(S) 03.03.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Rajas Pohankar, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a week's further time to file a fresh compliance report.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.1635/2014 03.03.2015 Mr.Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.D.K.Tripathi counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the return shall be filed during the course of the day.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on on 5 t h March, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2927/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Laywer for the respondents.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to respondents to consider his claim for annual increment of the post of Lab Technician for the period which he has rendered services on adhoc basis.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to his grievance the petitioner has submitted a representation (AnnexureP/9) to the respondent No.1 and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the aforesaid authority to consider and decide the same by a speaking order in the light of orders contained in AnnexuresP/6 and P/7.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submits that the representation of the petitioner shall be considered by the respondent No.1 in accordance with law.
In view of aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and as agreed to by them, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and decide the representation (AnnexureP/9) submitted by the petitioner by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today in the light of orders contained in AnnexuresP/6 and P/7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm/rk Writ Petition No.2890/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.Devesh Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition on merits as well as interim relief to the respondents.
Notices are made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that writ petition involving similar issue has already been entertained and interim order has been granted. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel has invited the attention of this Court to order dated 02.04.2013 passed in W.P.No.4710/2013.
In view of aforesaid submission, made by learned counsel for the petitioner and with a view to maintain parity, it is directed that the operation and effect of impugned order dated 31.12.2014 shall remain stayed till next date of hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm/rk Writ Petition No.2899/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.Vidhya Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to challenge the order dated 17.11.2014, if an occasion so arises.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2928/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.Gopi Chourasiya, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to comply with the order dated 27.02.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm Writ Petition No.1727/2015 02.03.2015 List along with W.P.No.18667/2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge ks/rk Writ Petition No.18667/2014 02.03.2015 Mr.Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for short adjournment in order to enable him to file rejoinder as well as reply to I.A.No.1947/2015.
As prayed, list the petition in the course of next week.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge ks/rk Writ Petition No.19281/2014 02.03.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.A.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed an application, I.A.No.2248/2015 on 27.02.2015. However, the same is not on record.
Office is directed to trace the same and place it on record.
As prayed, list the petition in course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.19978/2014 02.03.2015 Mr.A.P.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file an application for review of order dated 13.11.2014 passed by the Trial Court.
In view of aforesaid submission, office is directed to return certified copy of the impugned order to learned counsel for the petitioners on substitution thereof by a photocopy.
Needless to state, in case the petitioners file an application for review, the same shall be dealt with by the Trial Court in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge ks/rk Writ Petition No.1098/2015 02.03.2015 None for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 to 4.
Mr.V.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
None had appeared on behalf of the petitioner even when the the matter is taken up in second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.2708/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing along with W.P.No.2710/2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.2804/2015 02.03.2015 Petitioner in person.
Since, Judicial Officer is impleaded as one of the respondent in the writ petition, let the same be listed before Division BenchI, if possible, on 04.03.2015.
A fixed date is being given, as the petitioner appears in person.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.17990/2011 02.03.2015 Mr.Mayank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in case, the grievance of the petitioner still subsists.
In view of the aforesaid submission, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2939/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.M.A.Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Laywer for the respondents.
Let the record of the Election Tribunal be called for.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2652/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.Sourabh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment in order to enable him to address this Court on the question of admission.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2661/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.Akhilesh Kumar Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
As prayed by learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents, let this writ petition be listed for analogous hearing along with R.P.No.281/2014 in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.2718/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.A.Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
After arguing the matter to some extent, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In view of aforesaid submission, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner files a fresh application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same shall be dealt with by the trial Court in accordance with law.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2843/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.Atul Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2731/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.Balaji Akhilwar, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file the election petition in order to enable him to challenge the election of respondent No.3.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2757/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.M.P.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment in order to enable him to file an application for amendment so as to challenge the vires of the rules in question.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after a week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2758/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.Ajit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time in order to enable him to place on record copy of the policy governing appointment on compassionate basis in the establishment of the respondent.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2668/2015 02.03.2015 Ms.Durgesh Thapa, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2763/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Let the writ petition be listed for further orders in week commencing 06.04.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2817/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.R.S.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 24.12.2014 passed by Collector.
Fact giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the fair price shop in question situate in village Nuna was alloted in favour of respondent No.7. However, in view of various complaints received against the respondent No.7, allotment of shop made in favour of respondent Nio.7 was cancelled, and the petitioner was permitted to run the fair price shop on adhoc basis.
Being aggrieved by the order of cancellation, it appears that respondent No.7 had preferred an appeal before the Collector. The Collector allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No.7 and it was, inter alia, held that in view of clause6 of Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2009, the society which is registered for an urban area cannot be alloted a fair price shop in the rural area. It is not in dispute that the petitioner society is registered to run the fair price shop in respect of urban area and, therefore, the shop in question cannot be alloted for the rural area. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to dispute the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
In view of the fact that the petitioner society is not entitled to allotment of the shop in question under the provision of clause6 of Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009, as also the fact that counsel for the petitioner was unable to demonstrate infringement of any legal right, the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable.
For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Same fails and is hereby dismissed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2859/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of CPC.
In view of aforesaid submission, office is directed to return the certified copy of order dated 21.01.2015 on substitution thereof by its photocopy.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.7300/2014 02.03.2015 Mr.R.K.Kesherwani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
Heard on I.A.No.1932/2015. Taking into account the fact that the respondent No.1, 2 and 3 had already sold the property to respondent No.6 and an order of injunction has been passed against the respondent No.6, service of notice on respondent No.2, 3 and 5 is dispensed with.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1932/2015 is allowed. Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.13240/2012 02.03.2015 List along with the records of W.P.No.3098/2005. As prayed by Mr.Brian D'Silva, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.1, let the writ petition be listed for consideration of I.A.No.13312/2014 in week commencing 16.03.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.11766/2014 02.03.2015 Mr.R.K.Verma, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Sourabh Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks' further time to file return, failing which, this Court may consider directing personal appearance of the Officer Incharge of the case.
Let the writ petition be listed on 23 r d March, 2015.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to learned Government Advocate during the course of the day.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.13795/2014 02.03.2015 Mr.A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.18413/2014 02.03.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Vikas Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply to I.A.No.1114/2015.
In the meanwhile, respondent No.3, namely, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur, shall consider the representation submitted by the petitioner as referred to in I.A.No.1114/2015 for not filling up post of Lecturer, Mathematics.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2976/2015 02.03.2015 Mr.V.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on I.A.No.2103/2015. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Requirement of filing certified copy of the impugned order is dispensed with.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 4 t h March, 2015 on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.3098/2005 02.03.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Heard on I.A.No.6124/2014. For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed.
Let the necessary amendment in the cause title be carried out within a week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.6360/2013 02.03.2015 Mr.P.C.Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to move an appropriate application.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.10992/2012 02.03.2015 Mr.A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard on I.A.No.16328/2012. Learned Government Advocate submits that in compliance of the interim order dated 26.07.2012 the petitioner has already continued on the post in question up to the age of 62 years and, therefore, the adinterim order dated 26.07.2012 be vacated.
The aforesaid factual aspect of the matter is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of aforesaid submission adinterim order dated 26.07.2012 is hereby vacated, since the petitioner had already completed up to the age of 62 years of service, in view of the adinterim order dated 26.07.2012. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed as infructuous.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.3195/2013 02.03.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Heard on I.A.No.1580/2015, an application for substitution of Legal Representatives of deceased petitioner No.1.
For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be carried out in the cause title within a week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.4005/2013 02.03.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Adinterim order dated 08.05.2013 is made absolute.
Accordingly, prayer for interim relief is disposed of.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.4211/2013 02.03.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Heard on I.A.No.1023/2015, an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated therein, same is allowed.
Let the necessary amendment be incorporated within one week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.4474/2013 02.03.2015 Mrs.Devika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.9529/2013 02.03.2015 Parties through the respective counsel. Mr.Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel with Ms.Namrata Kesherwani counsel for the respondent No.5 prays for adjournment.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 4 t h March, 2015.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.12232/2013 02.03.2015 Mr.A.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.R.K.Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Mr.Abhijeet Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 prays for adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel Mr.Sunil Kumar Verma is out of station. However, he assures this Court that he shall positively argue the case on 4 t h March, 2015 and shall not seek any further adjournment, in case, his senior counsel is not available and shall himself prepare the case and argue the same.
In view of aforesaid undertaking given by Mr.Abhijeet Roy, as prayed let the case be listed on 4 t h March, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.18987/2013 02.03.2015 Mr.Shailendra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.22440/2013 02.03.2015 Mr.P.D.Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arguing counsel Mr.S.P.Dubey is not available.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk 27.02.2015 As prayed, let the case be listed in the course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.17871/2013 27.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Puneet Shroti, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2271/2009 27.02.2015 Let the writ petition be listed before another Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.18218/2014 27.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Documents filed vide I.A.No.15157/2014, are taken on record .
Accordingly, I.A. is allowed. H.K.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply to I.A.No.15001/2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.4741/2004 27.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Anil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A.No.2143/2015. On due consideration, same is allowed. Let necessary amendment be incorporated within seven days.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk S.A.No.215/2012 27.02.2015 List along with S.A.No.88/2012.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk S.A.No.88/2012 27.02.2015 Mr.D.K.Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted four weeks' time to comply with the order dated 16.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk F.A.No.785/2012 27.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. As prayed, let the appeal be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.6039/2012 27.02.2015 Mr.Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks' further time to comply with the order dated 22.07.2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.10992/2012 27.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Let the writ petition be listed on 2 n d March, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.16261/2013 27.02.2015 Mr.Shobitaditya, learned counsel for the respondent No.19 prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply to I.A.No.12873/2013.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk S.A.No.1224/1999 26.02.2015 Mr.Devdatt Bhave, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.B.M.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the sole respondent has expired.
In view of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file an appropriate application seeking substitution of L.Rs' of deceased respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk 26.02.2015 Conc. Case Nos.406/2014, 817/2014, 818/2014 933/2014, 934/2014, 935/2014, 1114/2014, 1115/2014, 1116/2014, 1141/2014, 1142/2014, 1208/2014, 1210/2014, 1211/2014, 1246/2014, 1248/2014, 1299/2014, 1326/2014, 1356/2014, 1357/2014, 1359/2014, 1360/2014, 1369/2014, 1373/2014, 1411/2014, 1413/2014, 1428/2014, 1430/2014, 1541/2014, 1542/2014, 1543/2014, 1544/2014, 1547/2014, 1548/2014, 1623/2014, 1625/2014, 1626/2014, 1627/2014 1628/2014, 1974/2014, 1975/2014, 1983/2014, 1984/2014 and 2079/2014 For the reasons assigned in the order passed today in Con.C.No.985/2013, these contempt petitions are disposed of on same terms and with the similar observations.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge W.P.No.17473/2014 26.02.2015 Ms.Sudipta Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. In this writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 15.07.2014 by which application referred by respondent No.3 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court ought to have appriciated that by allowing the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure the nature of suit would change.
I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. The petitioner has filed the civil suit seeking the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.1 to remove the construction raised by him on the property in question. Defendant No.1 in the written statement has denied that he has raised any construction on the land in question. The respondent No.3 has filed an application in which he has stated that he has raised the construction. Thereupon, the trial court with the view to avoid multiplicity of litigation has allowed the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even otherwise, the question on addition of parties is one of discretion and not on jurisdiction which has been exercised by the trial court. The discretion to deal with the prayer for impleadment has been exercised by the trial court on sound principle of law. The order sought to be impugned in the instant writ petition neither suffers from any jurisdictional infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant writ petition. Same fails and is hereby dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.19346/2012 26.02.2015 Mr.Madhur Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A.No.1810/2015, an application seeking substitution of L.Rs' of deceased petitioner.
On due consideration, same is allowed. Let necessary amendment be incorporated in memo of petition within a week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.17163/2014 26.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Bhanupratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file the rejoinder.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.15339/2014 26.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.D.K.Parouha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, he prays for and is granted three weeks time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.15911/2014 26.02.2015 Mr.Amilesh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition.
Accordingly, same is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.16855/2014 26.02.2015 Mr.A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file an additional document.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.18009/2014 26.02.2015 Mr.Neeraj Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to file an application for amendment of the writ petition in order to enable him to challenge the validity of the order dated 05.03.2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.1938/2014 26.02.2015 Ms.Naseeb Kaur Mann, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.19555/2014 26.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.19774/2014 26.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.20238/2014 26.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Abhay Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to seek instruction, as the matter has been transferred from Indore Bench.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of writ petition along with annexures to learned counsel for the respondents within three days.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.825/2015 26.02.2015 Mr.S.K.Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.1557/2015 26.02.2015 Mr.Shiv Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.1672/2015 26.02.2015 Mr.Ashok Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing along with W.P.No.1675/2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2189/2015 26.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr. Kapil Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file the reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2194/2015 26.02.2015 Mr.Agnivesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to comply with the order dated 16.02.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.17948/2006 26.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. Let I.A.No.1585/2015 be listed before Division BenchI. (Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk S.A.No.1247/2014 26.02.2015 Heard on I.A.No.966/2014. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
The appellants are permitted to engage Mr. P.S.Gaharwar as their counsel.
Accordingly, I.A. is allowed. Office is directed to reflect the name of Mr. P.S.Gaharwar, as counsel for the appellants in the cause list.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm W.P.No.5573/2014 26.02.2015 Mr.Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Piyush Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that he has filed an application for vacating stay, namely, I.A.No.1529/2015 on 09.02.2015. However, the same is not on record. Office is directed to trace the same and place it on record.
Return, if any, on behalf of respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 shall be filed within a period of two weeks.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for consideration of aforesaid interlocutory application in week commencing 16 t h March, 2015.
Interim order passed on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge rm W.P.No.20886/2013 26.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Dhananjay Asati, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 prays for and is granted four weeks' further time to file the reply.
In the meanwhile, interim order dated 20.01.2014 shall continue till the next date of hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge rm W.P.No.6296/2014 26.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Heard on I.A.5225/2014. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, adinterim order dated 05.12.2014 is made absolute.
Accordingly, I.A. is allowed. Let the writ petition be listed for further orders in week commencing 23 r d March, 2015.
List along with W.P.No.3993/2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm W.P.No.4192/2014 26.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Heard on I.A.3411/2014. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, adinterim order dated 14.03.2014 is made absolute.
Accordingly, I.A. is allowed. Let the writ petition be listed for further orders in week commencing 23 r d March, 2015.
List along with W.P.No.3993/2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm W.P.No.3993/2014 26.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Heard on I.A.3242/2014. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, adinterim order dated 25.03.2014 is made absolute.
Accordingly, I.A. is allowed. Let the writ petition be listed for further orders in week commencing 23 r d March, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm S.A.No.795/2000 23.02.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge S.A.No.676/2000 23.02.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge S.A.No.61/2000 23.02.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge S.A.No.1359/1999 23.02.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge S.A.No.1275/1999 23.02.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge S.A.No.482/1999 23.02.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge S.A.No.425/1999 23.02.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge S.A.No.1103/1999 23.02.2015 None for the parties, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge M.A.No.446/2015 23.02.2015 Let the receipt as required under proviso to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 be filed within a period of two weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm S.A.No.896/1999 23.02.2015 None for the appellants. Mr.Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the respondents.
Let the appeal be listed before another Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm S.A.No.1111/1999 23.02.2015 Mr.Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr.Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant pleads no instruction.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm S.A.No.903/2014 23.02.2015 Mr.Ashok Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on I.A.1855/2015. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that original documents, namely, Farkhatti Receipt dated 06.01.1953, Panch Faisala dated 11.07.1952 and receipt dated 26.07.1976 be returned to the appellant as the same are required to be filed in Civil Suit No.3A/2014.
In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and for the reasons stated in the application, the prayer is allowed.
The aforesaid original documents are permitted to be returned to the appellant subject to substitution by certified copies thereof by the appellant.
Accordingly, I.A. is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm W.P.No.2620/2015 23.02.2015 Mr.Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Laywer for the respondents.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to the respondents to grant lease to the petitioner under Section 3 of the M.P.Nagariya Kshetro Ke Bhoomiheen Vyakti (Pattadhariti Adhikaran Ka Pradan Kiya Jana) Adhiniyam, 1984 (in short 'the 1984 Act').
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that with regard to his claim the petitioner may be granted liberty to file an application under Section 3 of the aforesaid Act before the respondent No.3 and the instant petition may be disposed of with the direction to the aforesaid authority to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned Panel Laywer submitted that in case such an application is filed, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner files an application under Section 3 of the 1984 Act before the respondent No.3 SubDivisional Officer (Revenue), Hatta, District Damoh within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the said authority shall consider and decide the same by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of filing of such an application. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk S.A.No.451/2008 23.02.2015 Heard on I.A.No.8790/2013, an application for urgent hearing.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Accordingly, I.A. is allowed. Let the appeal be listed for hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm M.Cr.C.No.20763/2014 23.02.2015 Mr.Ankit Sexana, learned counsel for the applicant submits that Mr.Sumit Raghuvanshi has filed an objection on behalf of the objector. However, his name has not been mentioned in the cause list.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Mr.Sumit Raghuvanshi as counsel for the objector in the cause list.
As prayed, let the case be listed in the course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm M.A.No.702/2013 23.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Heard on I.A.No.7297/2014, an application for permission to release the amount.
Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3submits that appellants have deposited statutory amount of Rs.25,000/ and, therefore, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw the same.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.25,000/ deposited by the appellants.
I.A. is allowed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm W.P.No.202/2014 23.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the additional reply in compliance of order dated 02.02.2015 has already been filed. However, the same is not on record.
Office is directed to trace the same and place it on record.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm W.P.No.14871/2014 23.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm Writ Petition No.3123/2013 20.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejoinder has been filed today.
Office is directed to trace the same and place it on record.
Mr.S.Sohgaura, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 prays for adjournment in order to enable him to go through the rejoinder.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for consideration of I.A.No.9675/2014/2015 in week commencing 02.03.2015.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.19193/2012 20.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Let the writ petition be listed before Division BenchI. (Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.8483/2013 20.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the writ petition be listed after two weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.1416/2014 20.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr.D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment in order to enable him to move an application seeking early hearing of this writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.12309/2014 20.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr.Suraj Verma, learned counsel for petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file the rejoinder.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.3185/2014 20.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.13555/2014 20.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.1463/2014 20.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr.S.D.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for respondents though served. After arguing the matter to some extent, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In view of aforesaid submission, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner files a fresh application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the trial Court shall decide the said application in accordance with law without being influenced with the order dated 22.08.2014.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.17106/2014 20.02.2015 Office is directed to submit service report with regard to service of notice on the respondents.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.17106/2014 20.02.2015 Office is directed to submit service report with regard to service of notice on the respondents.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.13643/2014 20.02.2015 Mr.S.K.Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks' further time by way of last indulgence to file an application for amendment of the writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.17950/2014 20.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the reply.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.20276/2014 20.02.2015 Let the writ petition be listed before another Bench, if possible in the course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.20510/2014 20.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr.Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file an application for amendment in order to enable him to place on record the order of allotment passed in favour of respondent No.4.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.1991/2014 20.02.2015 Mr.Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 20.01.2014 by which the trial court has rejected the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff.
Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the plaintiff filed a suit seeking relief of injunction that respondents/ defendants be restrained from forcibly evicting the plaintiff from suit accommodation. Admittedly, the defendant No.1 has sold the suit house to defendant No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 21.06.2014. The plaintiff filed two applications for amendment on 04.10.2013 as well as on 23.10.2013 which were allowed by the trial court vide order dated 30.10.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner again filed an application for amendment in the inter alia it was pleaded that defendant No.1 has no right to sell the suit shop. The trial court has rejected the aforesaid application. In the aforesaid, factual background the petitioner has approached this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since defendant No.2 is forcibly evicting the plaintiff from the suit accommodation and that the plaintiff has the locus to challenge the authority of defendant No.1 to alienate the property.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order passed by the trial court and has submitted that the amendment is beyond scope of suit.
I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records in para1 of the plaint. The plaintiff has averred that the suit shop was let out to him by defendant No.1. Admittedly, the suit shop has been sold by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2 vide registered sale deed dated 21.06.2013 in the plaint. The plaintiff has sought the relief of permanent injunction against defendants No.1 & 2 that he should not be forcibly evicted from the suit accommodation. However, by way of proposed amendment the plaintiff has impugned the authority of defendant No.1 to alienate the sale deed which is not permissable, in view of the stand taken by the defendant No.1 in para1 of the written statement. Besides that the proposed amendment is not necessary for a fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit as the same is wholly out side the scope of the suit. The application for amendment as therefore rightly has been rejected by the trial court. The impugned order neither suffers from any jurisdictional error nor infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.6489/2014 20.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr.Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Aditya Adhikari, learned Senior counsel with Mr.Gajdendra Singh learned counsel for the respondents.
Document filed vide I.A.No.13626/2014, is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A. is allowed. Also heard on I.A.No.13628/2014, an application for production of original records.
Learned Senior counsel for the respondents submits that he shall keep original records pertaining to selection of retail outlet in question for perusal of the court.
In view of aforesaid submission, I.A. is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.15309/2014 20.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the course of the next date.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.17865/2014 20.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Ms.Sheetal Dubey, learned Government Advocate for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file the reply.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.17930/2014 20.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr.Subodh Kathar, learned counsel for the respondents prays for adjournment in order to enable him to prepare and argue the case.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after two week's.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk S.A.No.738/2001 19.02.2015 Mr.Abhijit Bhowmik, learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal as the appellant has already sold the property.
In view of aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk S.A.No.1062/2000 19.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Dinesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr.Z.M.Shah, learned counsel for the respondents during the course of hearing, in view of submission made by learned counsel for the respondents, following substantial question of law also arises for consideration in order to effectively adjudicate the controversy involved between the parties, the following substantial question of law is framed as under:
4. Whether the decree on the grounds enumerated under Section 12(1)(f) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, can be granted to the plaintiffs specially in view of the fact that the plaintiff No.2 whose bonafide need was set up in the plaint, was minor on the date of institution of the suit?"
Learned counsel for the parties pray for short adjournment in order to address this Court on the aforesaid question.
As prayed, let the appeal be listed on
20.02.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge W.P.No.2428/2015 19.02.2015 Mr.Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Swapnil Ganguly, learned counsel for the respondents.
Shri Arpan J.Pawar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 23.07.2010 by which reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been dismissed as the plaintiff has failed to adduce evidence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall keep all his witnesses present on the date which may be fixed by this court. The aforesaid prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.
In view of aforesaid made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall keep all his witnesses present before the trial Court on 24.03.2015. The trial Court shall examine the witnesses on the said date and shall proceed to decide the reference in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 23.07.2010 is set aside.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a Writ Petition No.17745/2014 19.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr.Dinesh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing. Heard on I.A.No.16170/2014, an application for vacating stay.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is an Assistant Professor in Agriculture Economics and is posted in Tikamgarh since 03.01.2006. It is further submitted that since there was no Assistant Professor in Agriculture Economics in Agriculture College, Rewa, in view of the requisition made by Agriculture College, Rewa, the petitioner was transferred to Rewa to ensure that the studies of the students in Agriculture College, Rewa are not adversely affected on account of non availability of the teaching staff. It is also submitted that the order of transfer has been passed in administrative exigency and the representation submitted by the petitioner pursuant to order dated 11.09.2014 passed in W.P.No.4320/2014 has been rejected on due consideration.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 14(2) of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidhyalaya Act, 1963, the Chancellor had issued and order and, therefore, the respondentuniversity could not have rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner.
I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly, the order of transfer has neither been passed in violation of any statutory provision nor the same suffers from the vice of malafide. The sole ground of challenge to the order dated 01.11.2014 by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected is that the same has been passed in violation of the direction issued by the Chancellor. Section 14(1) of the Act reads as under: "1. ...................................................
2. The Chancellor may, by an order in writing, annual any proceeding of any officer or authority of the Vishwa Vidyalaya which is not in conformity with this Act, the Statutes or the Regulations:
Provided that before making any such order he shall call upon the officer or authority concerned to show cause why such an order should not be made and if any cause is shown within the time specified by him in this behalf, he shall consider the same."
The order of transfer which has been passed in administrative exigency, would not be covered within the ambit and scope of section 14(2) of the Act. From perusal of the communication (AnnexureP/10) dated 17.06.2014, it is evident that the Chancellor has not exercised the power under Section 14(2) of the Act.
Therefore, the order of transfer has been passed in administrative exigency. The petitioner has no legal right to continue in Tikamgarh. Therefore, the ad interim order dated 29.03.2014 is hereby vacated.
In the result, I.A. is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.2451/2015 19.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr.Abdul Kalam, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Learned Panel Lawyer submits that the order dated 20.10.2014 is appealable under the provision of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is functional.
In view of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for short adjournment in order to ascertain the aforesaid aspect.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.17336/2010 19.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr.Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondents, even though the matter is taken up in the second round .
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.19948/2014 19.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr.T.Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for and is granted 10 days' time to file the reply.
In the meanwhile, interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2213/2015 19.02.2015 Mr.Munish Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to respondent No.3 and 4 to properly investigate the offence registered vide Crime No.3/2014 by Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to his grievance the petitioner be granted the liberty to submit a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur and the aforesaid authority be directed to take action under section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submits that in case the petitioner files such a complaint, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submission made by learned counsel for the parties and as to agreed by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner files a complaint u/s 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the respondent No.3, namely Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, the respondent No.3 shall look into and deal with the complaint which may be filed by the petitioner, expeditiously in accordance with law.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.642/2015 19.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.B.D.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have refused to open the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee which has been kept in sealed cover on the ground that Criminal Revision No.1189/2010, is pending before this Court. It is further submitted that the aforesaid revision has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2015.
In view of aforesaid, Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the respondents prays for short adjournment in order to enable him to examine the aforesaid aspect.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 23 r d February, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.4602/2014 19.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Heard on I.A.No.1702/2014, an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated therein same is allowed.
Let the necessary amendment be incorporated in the writ petition within one week.
Let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing along with W.P.Nos.2104/2015, 2476/2014 and 20492/2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.16572/2012 19.02.2015 Mr.D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Forest Guard or any other equivalent post like Assistant GradeIII or Computer Operator and to direct the respondents to accord him the benefit of seniority.
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to his grievance, the petitioner be granted the liberty to submit a representation to respondent No.2, namely Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) and the aforesaid authority be directed to consider and decide the said representation which may be submitted by the petitioner, in the light of order dated 20 t h September, 2014 passed by General Administration Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submits that in case the petitioner submits such a representation, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today to respondent No.2, namely Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.), the aforesaid authority shall consider and decide the said representation within a period of two months, in the light of order dated 20.11.2011 passed by General Administration Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, by a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.17791/2011 19.02.2015 Mr.A.Usmani, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to seek instruction in the matter and to apprise this Court whether anything survives for adjudication in the this writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.15390/2011 19.02.2015 Ms.Archana Nagariya, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.12105/2011 19.02.2015 None for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round .
It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.9500/2011 19.02.2015 None for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round .
It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.8146/2011 19.02.2015 None for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round .
It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.8125/2011 19.02.2015 None for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round .
It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2005/2014 19.02.2015 Mr.Rohit Sohgaura, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms.Sheetal Dubey, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
In compliance of the order dated 28.01.2015, learned Government Advocate submits that she is going to file the reply during the course of the day.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 24.02.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.6997/2013 19.02.2015 Mr.Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Pranay Choubey, learned counsel for the respondent.
Heard on the question of interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner superannuated from the post of Secretary, Krashi Upaj Mandi Samiti on 31.10.2014 and in view of Regulation 34(1)(b) of the Rajya Mandi Board Seva Viniyam, 1998, a departmental enquiry against a retired employee can be initiated within a period of two years for reasons to be recorded and such enquriy has to be concluded within a period of one year. However, in the instant case, the chargesheet has been issued in violation of Regulation 34(1)(b) of the Regulation on 06.12.2012 and the proceeding in the departmental enquiry is still pending.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the proceeding can be initiated against the petitioner even beyond the period of two years. It is further submitted that the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of materials which were available against him prior to his retirement.
I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties. Regulation 34(1)(b) of the Regulation clearly provides that two years from the date of superannuation for an employee, a departmental enquiry can be initiated. Admittedly, in the instant case, the chargesheet has been issued beyond the period of two years, which amounts to violation of Regulation 34(1)(b) of the Regulation. It is therefore directed that the proceeding in the departmental enquiry pending against the petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.13857/2013 19.02.2015 Rejoinder filed vide I.A.No.2545/2014, is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.No.2545/2014 is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.2069/2011 19.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Ms.Sudeepta Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of notice dated 25.01.2011 by which the petitioner was asked to produce certain documents and to disclose the authority under which he is running the trust in question.
The writ petition is pending before this Court since 2011 in which no interim order has been passed.
When a query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner to apprise this Court with regard to status of the proceeding initiated by the Registrar, Public Trust, Jabalpur (M.P.), learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks time to seek instruction and to appraise this Court with regard to status of the proceedings before the Registrar, Public Trust, Jabalpur (M.P.).
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.4749/2011 19.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Ms.Gulabkali Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent.
Heard.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 23.02.2011 by which the petitioner was placed under suspension on account of pending departmental enquiry against him. It appears that by now proceeding in the departmental enquiry must have been concluded and, therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition. In case, the departmental enquiry is still pending against the petitioner he would be at liberty to seek revival of the writ petition.
With the aforesaid liberty the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.14751/2012 19.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Notice on behalf of the respondent No.5 is accepted by Ms.Namrata Kesherwani, who prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Ms.Namrata Kesherwani as counsel for the respondent No.5 in the cause list.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.15386/2012 19.02.2015 Ms.Namrata Kesherwani, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the reply .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.15392/2012 19.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Rajesh Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A.No.8131/2014, an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated therein same is allowed.
Let the necessary amendment be incorporated in the writ petition within one week.
Let copy of the amended writ petition be supplied to Ms. Namrata Kesherwani, who has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.5.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Ms.Namrata Kesherwani as counsel for the respondent No.5.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.17381/2012 19.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.M.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file copy of the order passed by the Collector.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.12551/2013 19.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.T.S.Ruprah, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.A.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' further time to file a rejoinder.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.13490/2013 19.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 prays for and is granted a week's time to file additional reply as well as reply to I.A.No.14376/2014.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3assures this Court that he shall positively file the additional reply as well as reply to the I.A. within one week.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in week commencing 2 n d March, 2015.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.20826/2013 19.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. No notice is required to be issued to the respondents as they are represented through its counsel namely Shri Uttam Maheshwari, who prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file reply.
Let the writ petition be listed in week commencing 23 r d March, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.12569/2014 19.02.2015 Mr.V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.19752/2014 19.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply to I.A.No.1699/2015.
Let the writ petition be listed immediately after two weeks.
Interim relief granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.1779/2015 18.02.2015 Ms.Malti Dadariya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 to 3.
Heard on the question of admission. In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia has assailed the validity of order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the Principal Deputy Director, Directorate, Aayush by which order dated 01.01.2015 by which the petitioner was handed over the the charge of Divisional Aayush Officer w.e.f. 01.02.2015 has been cancelled by respondent No.3 on account of pendency of the departmental enquiry against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner, however, the same is subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.16061/2014, in which this Court by an interim order dated 05.02.2015 has directed that no final order in the departmental enquiry shall be passed till the next date of hearing and, therefore, the impugned order is per se bad in law.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents submits that the petitioner has no legal right to continue as incharge of the post of Divisional Aayush Officer.
I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, a charge sheet has been issued against the petitioner and a departmental enquiry is pending. Though, this Court by an interim order dated 05.02.2015 had directed that no final order shall be passed in the departmental enquiry initiated against the petitioner, however, the fact remains that a departmental enquiry is pending against the petitioner. The petitioner has no legal right to continue as incharge of the post of Divisional Aayush Officer and to deal with the financial matters. In the absence of infringement of any legal right, no case for interference in exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.10181/2014 18.02.2015 Mr.D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing. Let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing along with W.P.No.2178/2015(S) on 06.04.2015.
In the meanwhile, it would be open to the respondents to file the reply, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.2378/2015 18.02.2015 Mr.Ashwarya Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia seeks a direction to the respondent no.1 to decide the appeal pending before it.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 04.06.2014 before the Information Officer. However, the said authority did not pass any order, therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Collector which is pending consideration. It is further submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to decide the appeal expeditiously by a speaking order. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the appeal preferred by petitioner by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm W.P.No.19770/2014 18.02.2015 Mr.O.P.Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw I.A.No.1338/2015 with the liberty to file a fresh application. Accordingly, the I.A. is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
Let the writ petition be listed in the next week for consideration for prayer of interim relief.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.604/2015 18.02.2015 Mr.Akshay Sapre, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.H.C. Kohli, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file the return.
In the meanwhile, it is directed that any appointment made to the post in question, shall be subject to result of the writ petition.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.654/2015 18.02.2015 Mr.B.B.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Office report indicates that service of notice on the respondents is awaited.
Office is directed to submit report with regard to service of notice on the respondents.
List the matter after the respondents are served.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.5933/2014 18.02.2015 Mr.Sushrut Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.S.S.Bisen, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr.Rahul Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of order dated 12.01.2011, 28.02.2014, 03.03.2014 and 28.11.2013.
Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat Barkhed, Janpad Panchayat Athner vide order dated 14.07.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner was notified as Panchayat Secretary under Section 69(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
By an order dated 12.01.2011, the petitioner was divested of his status as Secretary under Section 69 of the Act. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal. However, the Commissioner by order dated 28.11.2013 dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has appraoched this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are perse without jurisdiction and has been passed in flagrant violation of the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter in short referred to as "Rules of 1999"). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that denotification of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat is a major penalty and the same cannot be imposed without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Lalla Prasad Burman Vs. State of M.P. & Others, 2008(3) M.P.L.J. 394. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents were unable to point out from the record that before denotifying the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secretary the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1999 was followed.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that the impugned orders directing removal of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Secreary have been passed without following the procedure prescribed in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999 and for the reasons stated by the Division Bench in the case of Lalla Prasad (supra), the impugned orders dated 12.01.2011, 28.02.2014, 03.03.2014 and 28.11.2013 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same are quashed. However, the respondents would be at liberty to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.2390/2015 18.02.2015 Mr.Shashank Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Pramod Chourasiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 31.03.2010 by which reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been dismissed in default for want of prosecution.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall keep all his witnesses present on the date which may be fixed by this court. The aforesaid prayer is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents.
In view of aforesaid made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall keep all his witnesses present before the trial Court on 24.03.2015. The trial Court shall examine the witnesses on the said date and shall proceed to decide the reference in accordance with law. The impugned order dated 31.03.2010 is set aside.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.2354/2015 18.02.2015 Mr.D.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioners, inter alia, seek a direction to the Competent Authority to look into the grievance of the petitioners with regard to illegal development of colony by the respondent Nos.10 and 11 in contravention of the provision of M.P.Municipal Corporation Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents No.10 and 11 are developing illegal colony on the land of the petitioner in contravention of the provisions of M.P. Municipal Corporation Act. It is further submitted that with regard to their grievance the petitioners may be granted liberty to file a representation to the Competent Authority and the instant petition may be disposed of with the direction to the said authority to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 fairly submits that in case such a representation is filed, same shall be dealt with in accordance with law..
Taking into account the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case with regard to their grievance the petitioners file a representation before the Competent Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the said authority shall consider and decide the same by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. Needless to state, while deciding the representation filed by the petitioners the Competent Authority shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.10 and 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge ks/rk W.P.No.2352/2015 18.02.2015 Ms.Sudha Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer and thereafter on the post of Principal of the Higher Secondary School.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Lecturer and thereafter to the post of Principal, Higher Secondary School. It is further submitted that juniors to the petitioner have already been promoted to the post in question, however, the claim of the petitioner has been denied without any rhyme or reason. It is also submitted that with regard to her grievance the petitioner has already filed a representation (AnnexureP/9) to the respondent No.4 and the instant petition may be disposed of with the direction to the said authority to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer fairly submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt in accordance with law.
Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Welfare Department, Dindori to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P/9) preferred by the petitioner by a speaking order as expeditiously, as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge ks/rk W.P.No.2180/2015 18.02.2015 Mr.D.K.Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition involving similar issue has been entertained and an interim order has been granted by a Bench of this Court. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 07.08.2013 passed in W.P.No.4260/2013.
In view of aforesaid submissions and with a view to maintain parity, it is directed that the operation and effect of order dated 06.06.2011 shall remain in abeyance and the petitioner shall not be put to any financial disadvantage due to the consequential order passed by the respondents.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing along with W.P.No.4260/2013, W.P.No.12803/2014 and other connected matters in week commencing 02.03.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge W.P.No.2158/2015 18.02.2015 Mr.Anurag Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as I.A.No.1550/2015.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice on merit as well as aforesaid I.A. to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit such amount as may be imposed by this Court and in case the plaintiff is not allowed to lead evidence he shall suffer an irretrievable prejudice.
In view of aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, it is directed that further proceeding in Civil Suit No.24A/2014 pending in the court of Civil Judge ClassII, Chhindwara, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
Let the writ petition be listed for further orders in week commencing 16.03.2015.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.2158/2015 18.02.2015 Mr.Anurag Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as I.A.No.1550/2015.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice on merit as well as aforesaid I.A. to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit such amount as may be imposed by this Court and in case the plaintiff is not allowed to lead evidence he shall suffer an irretrievable prejudice.
In view of aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, it is directed that further proceeding in Civil Suit No.24A/2014 pending in the court of Civil Judge ClassII, Chhindwara, shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
Let the writ petition be listed for further orders in week commencing 16.03.2015.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.18813/2014 18.02.2015 Mr.D.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Manas Verma, learned counsel for the respondents undertakes to supply copy of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents to learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day.
As prayed, list this writ petition along with W.P.No.13680/2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.13680/2014 18.02.2015 Mr.Naman Nagrath, learned Senior Counsel with Rajesh Chand for the petitioner.
Mr. Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.1.
Mr. Manas Verma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties S.T.F. appears to be a proper and necessary party for a fair and complete adjudication of the controversy involved in the instant writ petition.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three days' time to file an application for impleadment of S.T.F. as respondent in the writ petition.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.15520/2014 18.02.2015 Petitioner in person.
Mr.S.P.Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner prays for adjournment in order to enable him to file an affidavit along with supporting documents during the course of the day to counter the averments made in para17 of the return.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for consideration for prayer of interim relief on 20.02.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.19352/2014 18.02.2015 Mr.Manoj Chandurker, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let the record of the Labour Court be sent for and list the writ petition for orders on admission after receipt of the record.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.19507/2014 18.02.2015 Mr.Sheetal Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.2267/2015 16.02.2015 Mr.Umakant Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as I.A.No.1616/2015.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice on merit as well as aforesaid I.A. to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge a W.P.No.8894/2014 16.02.2015 Mr.Nitin Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to challenge the order dated 15.02.2014 in civil revision.
In view of aforesaid, office is directed to return certified copy of the impugned order to learned counsel for the petitioner on substitution thereof by its photocopy.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.13781/2014 16.02.2015 Mr.D.K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.T.Sheikh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 18.02.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.17642/2010 16.02.2015 Mr.S.P.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file an appropriate application before the trial Court.
Needless to state, that in case the petitioner files such an application along with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the same shall be dealt with by the trial Court, in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.12562/2012 16.02.2015 None for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round . It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.5846/2013 16.02.2015 None for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round . It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.8344/2013 16.02.2015 None for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round.
None had appeared on behalf of the petitioner even on 17.10.2013. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.3236/2013 16.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, let the writ petition be listed after a week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk W.P.No.299/2013 16.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, let the writ petition be listed after a week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk W.P.No.21416/2012 16.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, let the writ petition be listed after a week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk W.P.No.21344/2012 16.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. As prayed by learned counsel for the parties, let the writ petition be listed after a week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rk W.P.No.2135/2015 16.02.2015 Mr.K.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file an appropriate application before the trial Court.
Needless to state, that in case such an application is filed, the same shall be dealt with by the trial Court in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.2112/2015 16.02.2015 Mr.Riyaz Mohd., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.2080/2015 16.02.2015 Mr.Raghvendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.20224/2014 16.02.2015 Mr.Narendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioners, inter alia, seek a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and to grant them salary for the year 201314 as per the consumer price index and in the light of AnnexureP/2.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that with regard to their grievance, the petitioners have submitted representations (Collectively filed as AnnexureP/4) and the instant petition may be disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.4 to consider and decide the same. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer fairly submitted that suitable action on the representations submitted by the petitioners shall be taken, in accordance with law.
Taking into account the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.4 namely Principal, Government College Rampur, Naikin, District Sidhi to consider and decide the representations submitted by the petitioners (AnnexureP/4) in the light of the circular dated 22.02.2014 (AnnexureP/2) and shall pass a speaking order expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.34/2015 16.02.2015 Mr.H.C.Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of rejoinder to learned counsel for the respondent No.3 during the course of the day.
As prayed by learned counsel for the respondent No.3, let the writ petition be listed on 18.02.2015.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.20279/2014 16.02.2015 Petitioner in person.
Mr.K.Rohan, learned counsel for the respondents. Documents filed vide I.A.No.16599/2014, are taken on record. Accordingly, I.A. is allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file the reply.
Let the petition be listed on 2 n d March, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.19834/2014 16.02.2015 Mr.Manish Kumar Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.P.Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has filed I.A.No.1675/2015 on 12.02.2015. However, the same is not on record.
Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.18068/2014 16.02.2015 Mr.S.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms.Alka Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply the legible copy of page No.35 and 36 to learned counsel for the respondent No.6 by 18.02.2015.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file the return. In case the return is not filed by next date of hearing, this Court may consider closing the right of respondent No.6 to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.14814/2014 16.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Ashish Rawat, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 prays for and is granted two weeks' further time to file the return.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within three days, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a C.R.No.157/2012 16.02.2015 Mr.Ashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the civil revision with liberty to file an appropriate application before the trial court. Accordingly, same is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s S.A.No.205/2012 16.02.2015 Mr.K.K.Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant once again prays for adjournment.
Order sheet dated 02.02.2015 indicates that the appeal was adjourned at the request made by learned counsel for the appellant. However, in the interest of justice, by way of last indulgence, as prayed let the appeal be listed after two weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.8308/2013 16.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the court of next week. It is made clear that the writ petition be decided finally on the next date.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.7814/2012 16.02.2015 Mr.V.K.Shukla, leanred counsel for the petitioner.
Ms.Kanak Gaharwar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 8.
As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the writ petition be listed after three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.11703/2012 16.02.2015 Ms.Vinita Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time in the light of order dated 06.02.2015.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.12116/2012 16.02.2015 Mr.N.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
As directed vide order dated 06.02.2015 let the writ petition be listed along with W.P.No.2693/2012, in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a S.A.No.983/2013 16.02.2015 Mr.Rahul Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment on the ground that he is not ready with the matter.
As prayed, let the appeal be listed after four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.18354/2011 16.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr. Deepak Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms.Sheetal Dubey, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.
Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 once again prays for adjournment in order to enable him to file the reply.
The aforesaid prayer is opposed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that on 18.12.2014 as well as on 28.01.2015, time was granted for the said purpose. However, in the interest of justice, by way of last indulgence, two weeks' further time is granted to respondent no.2 to file the reply.
Let the writ petition be listed in week commencing 2 n d March, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a S.A.No.29/2012 16.02.2015 Mr.N.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Heard on I.A.Nos.1828/2015 and 1867/2015, applications for amendment of memo of appeal.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated therein, same are allowed.
Let necessary amendment be incorporated within a period of one week in the memo of appeal.
Let the records of the Courts below be called for and list the appeal for orders on admission after receipt of the records.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.327/2012 16.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Vijay Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms.Sheetal Dubey, learned Government Advocate submits that the name of Advocate General has not been mentioned in the cause list.
Office is directed to reflect the name of the Advocate General in the cause list as counsel for the respondent No.2 to 4.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in week commencing 23 r d February, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a F.A.No.1110/2012 16.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Ashok Chakravarti, learned counsel for the appellant.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, ad interim order dated 13.05.2013 is made absolute. Accordingly, I.A.No.14214/2012 is disposed of.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a S.A.No.732/2013 16.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Information furnished with regard to death of respondent No.4(b) vide I.A.No.1775/2015, is taken on record. Accordingly, I.A. is allowed.
Learned counsel for the appellants prays for and is granted two week's time to file an appropriate application seeking substitution of L.R's of deceased respondent No.4(b).
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.8308/2013 16.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the course of next week. It is made clear that if possible, the writ petition would be decided finally on the next date.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.1733/2015 13.02.2015 Mr.Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
In the meanwhile, any appointment made to the post in question shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.6201/2008 13.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for short adjournment in order to enable him to prepare synopsis.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a C.R.No.347/2007 13.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Gulab Singh, learned counsel for the non applicant Nos.1 to 4 prays for short adjournment in order to enable him to argue the case.
As prayed, the let revision be listed after three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.980/2004 13.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr. Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time by way of last indulgence to file the rejoinder.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.19896/2014 13.02.2015 Ms. Dipti Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing along with W.P.No.19894/2014.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.8863/2014 13.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.16845/2007 13.02.2015 Mr.Anurag Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondents. As prayed, list after one week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.10526/2014 13.02.2015 Mr.A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file the return.
Let the writ petition be listed in week commencing 09.03.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.13757/2013 13.02.2015 Mr.Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this petition to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.3098/2013 13.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Amit Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the return.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a C.R.No.319/2010 13.02.2015 Mr.S.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant.
Let the record of the trial court be sent for and list the revision for orders on admission after receipt of record.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a S.A.No.1839/2007 13.02.2015 Mr.Abhinav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants prays for short adjournment in order to enable him to seek instruction and to argue the appeal on admission.
As prayed, let the appeal be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.18835/2014 13.02.2015 Mr.A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to filed the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.17831/2014 13.02.2015 Mr.A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to filed the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.16623/2014 13.02.2015 Mr.B.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to filed the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.4005/2013 13.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.4087/2013 13.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. The petition has already been admitted for hearing, therefore, no orders are required to be passed in the writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.6377/2013 13.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. The petition has already been admitted for hearing, therefore, no orders are required to be passed in the writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.6771/2013 13.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Lalit Joglekar, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.21656/2013 13.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.12298/2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.2564/2013 13.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.21656/2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.8497/2014 13.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.21656/2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.2765/2014 13.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.21656/2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.12298/2013 13.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.21656/2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.10047/2013 13.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.21656/2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.12298/2013 13.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Heard on I.A. No.12155/2013, an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated therein same is allowed. It be incorporated within a period of 10 days.
Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.1854/2013 13.02.2015 Mr.Aditya Ahirwasi, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition. Accordingly, same is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.768/2013 13.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr.Harish Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Lalit Joglekar, Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous by the efflux of time.
Accordingly, same is dismissed as infructuous.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge s S.A.No.856/2008 13.02.2015 Mr.R.D.Hundikar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr.B.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1,4,5 and 6.
None for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 though served.
Heard on I.A.No.13707/2008, an application under Order 22 Rule 9 of CPC.
For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find that sufficient cause for setting aside abatement of the appeal is made out. Accordingly, I.A. is allowed..
Heard on I.A.No.13708/2008, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC.
For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be carried out in the cause title of this appeal within one week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s S.A.No.1143/2005 13.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a week's time to file an application for condonation of delay for setting aside abatement of the appeal. Time was granted to learned counsel for the appellant on 10.07.2014 as well as 21.01.2015 and for filing an application for condonation of delay. However, learned counsel for the appellant failed to file such an application.
In the interest of justice, by way of last indulgence one week's time is granted to Mr.Rajesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s F.A.No.344/1999 12.02.2015 Mr.S.P.Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.
After arguing the matter to some extent learned counsel for the appellant prays for adjournment in order to enable him to address this Court on the issue that the suit filed by the respondentBank is barred by limitation.
As prayed, list the appeal be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk F.A.No.95/1999 12.02.2015 None for the appellant even when the matter is taken up in the second round.
Mr.Rajesh Maindiretta, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
None had appeared on behalf of the appellant even on 11.02.2015. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.14436/2014 12.02.2015 Mr. Atul Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Amit Sahani, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition, in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Shri Sawal Singh Vs. Ramsakhi and Others reported in 2002 (4) MPHT 200.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for short adjournment in order to enable him to examine the aforesaid aspect.
Let the writ petition be listed in the course of next week for hearing the arguments on the question of maintainability of the writ petition as well as I.A. No.1095/2015, an application for vacating stay.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.17551/2014 12.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.U.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four week's time to file the rejoinder.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.19898/2014 12.02.2015 Mr.K.N.Pethia, learned counsel for the petitioner. As directed by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2015, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to serve a copy of the writ petition along with annexures to Mr. H.K.Upadhyay during the course of the day. Office is directed to reflect the name of Mr. H.K. Upadhyay as counsel for the respondents in the cause list.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.210/2015 12.02.2015 Office report indicates that service of notice on respondents is awaited.
Let the writ petition be listed as soon as respondents are served.
In the meanwhile, interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.9140/2011 12.02.2015 Mr.Anubhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole proprietor of the petitioner has expired. He, therefore, prays for and is granted a week's time to make an application for amendment of the cause title of the writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.19623/2014 12.02.2015 Mr.D.K.Tripathi, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) A.N.M. on contract basis for a period of one year, thereafter, her tenure has been extended from time to time. It is further submitted that clause15 of the guidelines issued by National Rural Health Mission contains specific provision of rationalization and, therefore, the services of the petitioner after the period of three years can be transferred and the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the conditions contained in the initial order of appointment.
In view of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for short adjournment in order to address this Court.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 18.02.2015 along with W.P.Nos.14357/2014, 19624/2014 and 14441/2014.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge a W.P.No.10489/2014 12.02.2015 Mr.D.K.Tripathi, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) A.N.M. on contract basis for a period of one year, thereafter, her tenure has been extended from time to time. It is further submitted that clause15 of the guidelines issued by National Rural Health Mission contains specific provision of rationalization and, therefore, the services of the petitioner after the period of three years can be transferred and the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the conditions contained in the initial order of appointment.
In view of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for short adjournment in order to address this Court.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 18.02.2015 along with W.P.Nos.14357/2014, 19624/2014 and 14441/2014.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge W.P.No.14441/2014 12.02.2015 Mr.D.K.Tripathi, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) A.N.M. on contract basis for a period of one year, thereafter, her tenure has been extended from time to time. It is further submitted that clause15 of the guidelines issued by National Rural Health Mission contains specific provision of rationalization and, therefore, the services of the petitioner after the period of three years can be transferred and the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the conditions contained in the initial order of appointment.
In view of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for short adjournment in order to address this Court.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 18.02.2015 along with W.P.Nos.14357/2014, 19624/2014.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge W.P.No.19625/2014 12.02.2015 Mr.D.K.Tripathi, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) A.N.M. on contract basis for a period of one year, thereafter, her tenure has been extended from time to time. It is further submitted that clause15 of the guidelines issued by National Rural Health Mission contains specific provision of rationalization and, therefore, the services of the petitioner after the period of three years can be transferred and the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the conditions contained in the initial order of appointment.
In view of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for short adjournment in order to address this Court.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 18.02.2015 along with W.P.Nos.14357/2014, 19624/2014 and 14441/2014.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge W.P.No.57/2015 12.02.2015 Mr.D.K.Tripathi, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard on I.A. No.1418/2014, an application for vacating stay.
Learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of (Auxiliary Nurse Midwife) A.N.M. on contract basis for a period of one year, thereafter, her tenure has been extended from time to time. It is further submitted that clause15 of the guidelines issued by National Rural Health Mission contains specific provision of rationalization and, therefore, the services of the petitioner after the period of three years can be transferred and the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the conditions contained in the initial order of appointment.
In view of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for short adjournment in order to address this Court.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 18.02.2015 along with W.P.Nos.14357/2014, 19624/2014 and 14441/2014.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge W.P.No.6709/2014 12.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Pratik Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 6 prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file the return.
Let the writ petition be listed on 10.03.2015.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge s W.P.No.12291/2013 12.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Dinesh Prasad Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejoinder shall be filed during the course of the day.
In view of aforesaid submission, Mr. Vivekanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the additional return, if so advised.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge a W.P.No.10484/2014 12.02.2015 Mr.D.K.Tripathi, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Heard on I.A. No.1418/2014, an application for vacating stay.
Learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (A.N.M.) on contract basis for a period of one year, thereafter, her tenure has been extended from time to time. It is further submitted that clause15 of the guidelines issued by National Rural Health Mission contains specific provision of rationalization and, therefore, the services of the petitioner after the period of three years can be transferred and the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the condition contained in the initial order of appointment.
In view of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for short adjournment in order to address this Court.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 18.02.2015 along with W.P.Nos.14357/2014, 19624/2014 and 14441/2014.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge W.P.No.18950/2012 12.02.2015 Mr.Amit Seth, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Manoj Chandurker, learned counsel for the respondents.
As directed vide order dated 03.02.2015, let a copy of writ petition along with annexures be supplied to learned counsel for the respondent during the course of the day.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing along with W.P.No.18953/2012 in the next week.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge s W.P.No.17237/2012 12.02.2015 Mr.Anuj Agrawal, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous by the efflux of time.
Accordingly, same is dismissed as infructuous.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge s W.P.No.16250/2012 12.02.2015 Mr.A.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing along with W.P.No.2934/2013.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Mr. Rajesh Maindiratta as counsel for the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.21363/2012 12.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Since the order granting interim relief has already been recalled on 13.12.2013, therefore, no orders are required to be passed on I.A. No.16225/2012.
Accordingly, same is disposed of.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.21069/2012 12.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. The writ petition has already been admitted for hearing.
Let I.A. No.13869/2014 be listed before the Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.20753/2012 12.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Rejoinder filed vide I.A.No.4782/2014, is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.No.4782/2014 is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.20714/2012 12.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Since claim of the petitioner has already has already been considered and rejected vide order dated 11.10.2012, therefore, interim relief in terms of the relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Accordingly, prayer for interim relief is rejected.
Mr. Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks time to file reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.20199/2012 12.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Heard on I.A. No.15760/2014, an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated therein same is allowed. It be incorporated within a period of one week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s S.A.No.45/2000 11.02.2015 Mr.Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the appellant in connection with Second Appeal No.1262/1999 that the appellant Heeramani has expired on 04.05.2002. Neither any application under Order 22 Rule 4 nor any application under Rule 9 of CPC has been filed.
Therefore, the appeal is held to have been abated. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk S.A.No.763/2000 11.02.2015 Mr.Nilesh Kotecha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has expired and decree has already been executed. He, therefore, submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the appeal.
In view of aforesaid submissions, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.5206/2010 11.02.2015 Mr.Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent no.1 even though served.
Office report indicates that service of notice to respondent no.2 could not be served.
In view of aforesaid office note, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to file an appropriate application seeking substituted service of notice of this writ petition on respondent No.2.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.13455/2009 11.02.2015 Mr.Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent no.1 even though served.
Office report indicates that service of notice to respondent no.2 could not be served.
In view of aforesaid office note, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to file an appropriate application seeking substituted service of notice of this writ petition on respondent No.2.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.13455/2009 11.02.2015 Mr.Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent no.1 even though served.
Office report indicates that service of notice to respondent no.2 could not be served.
In view of aforesaid office note, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to file an appropriate application seeks substituted service of notice of this writ petition on respondent No.2.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk S.A.No.198/2000 11.02.2015 Mr.Akhilesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellants prays for adjournment on the ground that the appellants have not contacted him since 2000.
The second appeal is pending before this Court since 2000. Ordinarily in such a situation the matter ought to have been dismissed for want of instruction. However, as the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of the advocate, I deem it appropriate to defer the hearing of the appeal on the condition that henceforth the matter shall not proceed in the priority category cases.
The Registrar Judicial shall take notice of this order and ensure that matter does not appear in priority category cases.
In case an application for early hearing or mention memo is filed, it will be the duty of the Office to invite the attention of this Court regarding the order passed today. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the appellants.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk S.A.No.269/2000 11.02.2015 None for the parties.
Since nobody is appearing on behalf the parties, ordinarily in such a situation the matter ought to have been dismissed for want of prosecution. However, as the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of the advocate, I deem it appropriate to defer the hearing of the appeal on the condition that henceforth the matter shall not proceed in the priority category cases.
The Registrar Judicial shall take notice of this order and ensure that matter does not appear in priority category cases .
In case an application for early hearing or mention memo is filed, it will be the duty of the Office to invite the attention of this Court regarding the order passed today. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the appellants.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.742/2013 11.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.01.2013 while entertaining the writ petition as the proceedings before the election petition.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner has already completed his tenure as President of Nagar Panchayat Shahpur, during the pendency of this writ petition, the pleadings are already completed.
In view of aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition. Accordingly, same become infructuous.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.16963/2012 11.02.2015 Mr.Bhupendra Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent states that return has already been filed.
Let a copy of return be supplied to Mr. B.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.16964/2012 11.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the pleadings in the case are complete.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.18613/2014 11.02.2015 Mr.Rajesh Prasad Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent no.1 to 3.
Mr.P.Balkrishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioners, inter alia, seek a direction to the respondents to provide them the benefit of Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy, 2002.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with regard to their grievance the petitioners may be granted liberty to file a fresh representation to the respondent No.2 and the instant petition may be disposed of with the direction to the said authority to consider and decide the same expeditiously. On the other hand, Learned Government Advocate fairly submits that in case such a representation is filed same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
Taking into account the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case with regard to their grievance the petitioners submit representation before the respondent No.2Collector, Singrauli within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the said authority shall decide the same by a speaking order expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation. Needless to state, the Collector, Singrauli, while deciding the representation filed by the petitioners shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondent No.4. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge ks/rk W.P.No.2049/2015 11.02.2015 Mr.A.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to the respondents to make payment of a sum of Rs.68,688/ along with interest to the petitioner on account of General Provident Fund which is due and payable to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner has been superannuated from the service on 31.03.2008, however, the aforesaid amount has not yet been paid to the petitioner. It is further submitted that with regard to his grievance the petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondent No.3 and the instant petition may be disposed of with a direction to the said authority to consider and decide the same expeditiously. On the other hand, Learned Government Advocate fairly submits that the representation submitted by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
Taking into account the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.3 Accountant General of M.P., Gwalior to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously within a period of three months from the date of production of certified of this order. Needless to state, the respondents no.3 while deciding the representation preferred by the petitioner shall pass a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge ks/rk W.P.No.2071/2015 11.02.2015 Mr.Jitendra K.Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting the attention of this Court to averments made in Para5.2 of the writ petition submitted that even though the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Sewadi has been reserved for woman category candidate and the election was scheduled to be held on 17.01.2015. However, since no person belonging to Scheduled Tribe resides in the village, therefore, the election for the post of Sarpanch could not be held on the said date.
In view of aforesaid submissions, Mr.Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate prays for two weeks' time to seek instruction in the matter.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a R.P.No.68/2015 11.02.2015 Mr.M.R.Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on I.A.No.1927/2014, an application for substitution of L.Rs'. of the applicant in the review petition.
For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed.
Let necessary amendment be carried out in the cause title of the review petition within three days.
As prayed, let the review petition be listed in the next week.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1927/2014 is disposed of.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.17269/2014 11.02.2015 Mr.Avinash Jargar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondent No.1. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.17860/2012 11.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Rejoinder filed vide I.A.No.9931/2013, is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.9931/2013 is allowed. Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents may file additional return within a period of four weeks, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.17843/2012 11.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Rejoinder filed vide I.A.No.3226/2014, is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.3226/2014 is allowed. Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents may file additional return within a period of four weeks, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.16985/2012 11.02.2015 Mr.Arpan J. Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Rahul Choubey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 to 6.
The writ petition has already been admitted for on 24.07.2014.
Let be listed for consideration on I.A.No.12414/2014 before the Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.17122/2012 11.02.2015 Mr.Rahul Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the prayer for interim relief has been rendered infructuous by efflux of time.
Accordingly, the prayer for interim relief is rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file rejoinder.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge s W.P.No.1724/2015 11.02.2015 Mr.Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the course of next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.1786/2013 11.02.2015 Mr.Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for adjournment in order to enable him to prepare the case and argue the same.
As prayed, let the case be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a W.P.No.2008/2015 11.02.2015 Mr.Manoj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this petition to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge a W.P.No.13713/2013 11.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.10111/2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.10111/2013 11.02.2015 Mr.Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinit Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Rejoinder filed vide I.A.No.6010/2014, is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.6010/2014 is allowed. Learned Panel Lawyer prays for short adjournment in order to enable him to address this Court on I.A.No.11098/2013.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.14593/2007 11.02.2015 Mr.Kamal Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this petition to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge s W.P.No.1828/2015 11.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.1695/2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.1826/2015 11.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.1695/2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.1825/2015 11.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.1695/2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.1748/2015 11.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.1695/2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.1736/2015 11.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.1695/2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.1734/2015 11.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.1695/2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.1709/2015 11.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.1695/2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.1704/2015 11.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.1695/2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.1702/2015 11.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.1695/2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.1700/2015 11.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.1695/2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.1695/2015 11.02.2015 Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.K.N.Bundela, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 on caveat.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 prays for and is granted a week's time to file reply to the prayer for interim relief as well as well as to the objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge s W.P.No.18241/2013(S) 10.02.2015 Let the petition be listed along with W.P. No.16900/2013 on 16.02.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge ks/rk W.P.No.1950/2015 09.02.2015 Mr.Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to the respondents to grant him regular payscale and award temporary status in pursuance of circular dated 01.01.1995.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by an order dated 14.12.2009 passed in W.P.No.2533/2008 ( Nand Kishore Vyas and Others Vs. State of M.P. and another). It is further submitted that the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation to the respondent no.4 and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 to decide the same by a speaking order in the light of the order passed in the case of Nand Kishore Vyas (supra).
In view of aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of theIn this case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation to the respondent no.4, District Education Officer, Bhopal within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent no.4 by a speaking order expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of submission of representation keeping in view the directions contained in order dated 14.12.2009 passed in the case of Nand Kishore Vyas (supra). It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm W.P.No.1953/2015 09.02.2015 Mr.Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this petition, the petitioner who is a retired Principal from the Department of School Education, inter alia, seeks a direction to the respondents to grant him benefit of leave encashment in respect of the leave to his credit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to his grievance the petitioner has submitted a representation AnnexureP/3 to the District Education Officer, Chhatarpur. It is further submitted that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by order dated 22.01.2007 passed by the Indore Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4787/2005 ( Chhaganlal Kankrecha Vs. State of M.P. and Others ). It is further submitted that the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of the order passed in the case of Chhaganlal Kankrecha (supra).
On the other hand, learned Government advocate submits that the representation of the petitioner shall be decided in accordance with law.
In view of aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent no.4 shall decide the representation (AnnexureP/3) submitted by the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of order passed today by a speaking order in the light of order passed in the case of Chhaganlal Kankrecha (supra). It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm W.P.No.16636/2013 09.02.2015 None for the parties.
Since nobody is appearing on behalf the parties, ordinarily in such a situation the matter ought to have been dismissed for want of prosecution. However, as the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of the advocate, I deem it appropriate to defer the hearing of the petition on the condition that henceforth the matter shall not proceed in the priority category cases but the same shall now proceed under the category of "Writ Petition (Civil) Other Than Above (23)" as per its own turn.
The Registrar Judicial shall take notice of this order and ensure that matter does not appear in other category except "Writ Petition (Civil) Other Than above (23)" as per its own turn.
In case an application for early hearing or mention memo is filed, it will the duty of the Office to invite the attention of this Court the order passed today. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the petitioner.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge ks/rk W.P.No.5428/2014 09.02.2015 None for the parties.
Since nobody is appearing on behalf the parties, ordinarily in such a situation the matter ought to have been dismissed for want of prosecution. However, as the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of the advocate, I deem it appropriate to defer the hearing of the petition on the condition that henceforth the matter shall not proceed in the priority category cases but the same shall now proceed under the category of "Writ Petition (Civil) Other Than Above (23)" as per its own turn.
The Registrar Judicial shall take notice of this order and ensure that matter does not appear in other category except "Writ Petition (Civil) Other Than above (23)" as per its own turn.
In case an application for early hearing or mention memo is filed, it will the duty of the Office to invite the attention of this Court the order passed today. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the petitioner.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge ks/rk W.P.No.10300/2014 09.02.2015 None for the parties.
Since nobody is appearing on behalf the parties, ordinarily in such a situation the matter ought to have been dismissed for want of prosecution. However, as the litigant should not suffer for the mistake of the advocate, I deem it appropriate to defer the hearing of the petition on the condition that henceforth the matter shall not proceed in the priority category cases but the same shall now proceed under the category of "Writ Petition (Civil) Other Than Above (23)" as per its own turn.
The Registrar Judicial shall take notice of this order and ensure that matter does not appear in other category except "Writ Petition (Civil) Other Than above (23)" as per its own turn.
In case an application for early hearing or mention memo is filed, it will the duty of the Office to invite the attention of this Court the order passed today. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the petitioner.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge ks/rk R.P.No.875/2013 09.02.2015 Mr.Sanjay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment. On several occasions also previously review petition has been adjourned.
Prayer is allowed by way of last indulgence. Let the review petition be listed on 13.02.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm W.P.No.1874/2015 09.02.2015 Mr.Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1.
Mr. G.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.
In this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, has challenged the validity of the orders dated 24.04.2013 and 09.05.2013 passed by Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Sagar. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent no.2 for making payment of arrears of salary for the period of 01.01.2006 to 31.05.2009 to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner who is a retired employee of Municipal Corporation, Sagar, is that respondents are not conferring the benefit of revision of payscale as also the recommendations of Sixth Pay Commission as per the M.P. Pay Revision Rules, 2009. It is further submitted that with regard to his grievance the petitioner has submitted a representation (AnnexureP/6) to the respondent no.2. It is also submitted that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by order dated 29.10.2013 passed in W.P.No.16742/2013.
A Bench of this Court by order dated 29.10.2013 in W.P.No.16742/2013 ( Prahlad Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and another ) has passed the following orders: "Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is seen that claim of the petitioner was considered by the Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, M.P., Bhopal and on 02.09.2013 vide communication AnnexureP/9, the Directorate of Urban Administration has requested the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Sagar to settle the claim of the petitioner and inform the Directorate in accordance to the circular issued by the State Government on 20.12.2009.
Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present without entering into the controversy on merits, the respondent No.2, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Sagar, shall take note of the Circular issued by the State Government dated 02.09.2013 (AnnexureP/9), and shall settle the claim of the petitioner in accordance to the Rules and entitlement of the petitioner, withing a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
In view of aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 to consider and decide the representation submitted by petitioner by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order in the light of order dated 29.10.2013 passed in the case of Prahlad Sharma (supra). It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.4834/2014 09.02.2015 Mr.K.K.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent nos.1 to 4.
None for the respondent nos.5 to 8. Let the writ petition be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk M.C.C.No.663/2013 09.02.2015 Mr.Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr.Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 prays for and is granted three days' time to comply the order dated 20.06.2014.
As prayed, list the case be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Conc. Case No.37/2012 09.02.2015 The contempt petition has already been admitted for hearing vide order dated 18.01.2012.
Let the same be listed for consideration on I.A.No.10640/2014 before the Division BenchI. (Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.1141/2014 09.02.2015 Mr.Girish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed before another Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.19527/2013 09.02.2015 Ms. Sadhna Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted adjournment on the ground that arguing counsel Mr.Hemant Namdeo, is out of station.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for consideration on I.A.No.15366/2013 after two weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.1949/2015 09.02.2015 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.1921/2015 09.02.2015 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk W.P.No.1283/2015 09.02.2015 Mr.V.D.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 5.
With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.
In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has challenged the validity of the order dated 21.01.2014 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, District Anuppur.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with regard to his grievance the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.15061/2013 which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2013 with a direction to the Collector, Anuppur to decide the representation preferred by the petitioner. However, the representation filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Anuppur. The aforesaid aspect of the matter could not be disputed by learned Panel Lawyer.
Taking into account the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that the impugned order has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, whereas a Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2013 passed in W.P.No.15061/2013 had issued a direction to the Collector, Anuppur to decide the representation, the impugned order dated 21.01.2014 is hereby quashed. The respondent no.2, the Collector, Anuppur is directed to decide the representation preferred by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order and shall pass a speaking order. Needless to state, the Collector, Anuppur shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent no.6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge ks/rk W.P.No.19743/2013 09.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge rm R.P.No.51/2015 09.02.2015 Mr.Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr.Amresh Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard on I.A.No.926/2015, an application for condonation of delay.
For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the review petition is made out. Accordingly, the delay in filing the review petition is condoned.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply to the review petition.
Let the review petition be listed after two weeks.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge rm W.P.No.20886/2013 09.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Dhananjay Asati, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5 prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply.
Interim order passed on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge rm W.P.No.20886/2013 09.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Mr.Dhananjay Asati, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5 prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply.
Interim order passed on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge ks/rk W.P.No.1746/2015 09.02.2015 Mr.D.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.
With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.
In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to take action on the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer expeditiously in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 04.12.2013. Thereafter, Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted inquiry report on 25.07.2014. However, the Disciplinary Authority, respondent No.4, has not taken any action on the aforesaid inquiry report. It is further submitted that the instant petition may be disposed of with the direction to the Disciplinary Authority to take action on the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer fairly submitted that appropriate action in accordance with law shall be taken on the aforesaid inquiry report.
Taking into account the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.4, District Education Officer, Bhopal to take action on the inquiry report dated 25.07.2014 in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge ks/rk W.P.No.1754/2015 09.02.2015 Mr.Dinesh Prasad Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent nos.1 and 3 to 5.
With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.
In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a direction to the respondents to make payment of compensation as per Collector guidelines on account of acquisition of land of the petitioner.
When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that being aggrieved by the impugned order the petitioner has already submitted an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Collector, Satna and the instant petition may be disposed with the direction to the said authority to decide the same expeditiously. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer fairly submitted that suitable action on the application submitted by the petitioner shall be taken in accordance with law.
Taking into account the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.2, Collector, District Satna to pass suitable order on the application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed by the petitioner in accordance with law within the period of two months from the date receipt of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge ks/rk W.P.No.17673/2012 09.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.16776/2012.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge rm W.P.No.17168/2012 09.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.16776/2012.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge rm W.P.No.16776/2012 09.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Sushil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment in order to enable him to prepare the case and argue the same.
As prayed, let the case be listed on 11 t h February, 2015.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge rm M.Cr.C.No.512/2015 09.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. As prayed by Mr.Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent, let the case be listed on 16 t h February, 2015.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge rm M.Cr.C.No.20763/2014 09.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. As prayed by Mr.Lalit Joglekar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent, let the case be listed on 16 t h February, 2015.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge rm R.P.No.756/2014 09.02.2015 Mr. Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the applicant submits that an application for impleadment, in view of the office objection, shall be filed during the course of the day.
As prayed, let the review petition be listed on 11 t h February, 2015.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge rm W.P.No.1624/2015 06.02.2015 Mr. Mukhtyar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. R.P. Khare, learned counsel for the respondents.
After arguing the matter to some extent, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to seek review of order dated 21.04.2014 passed in W.P.No.17629/2012.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge rm M.A.No.175/2014 06.02.2015 Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Devika Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and 3.
Office report indicates that the respondent no.1 has not been served.
In view of aforesaid office note, learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file an appropriate application.
In the meanwhile, interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge rm W.P.No.8375/2012 06.02.2015 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge rm M.A.No.1222/2008 06.02.2015 Mr. Jitendra Arya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission. The appeal is admitted for hearing. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue of this appeal to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge rm M.A.No.4152/2008 06.02.2015 None present for the appellant even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge rm W.P.No.6882/2012 06.02.2015 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge rm R.P.No.377/2014 06.02.2015 None present for the applicant even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the review petition.
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge rm W.P.No.9360/2012 06.02.2015 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge sb W.P.No.10393/2012 06.02.2015 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge sb C.R.No.69/2014 06.02.2015 Parties through their respective counsel. Heard on I.A.No.2719/2014, an application for stay.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, adinterim order dated 11.02.2014 is made absolute.
Accordingly, I.A. No.2719/2014 is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge rm C.R.No.573/2014 06.02.2015 Mr. Satyam Agrawal, Learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant prays for and is granted a week's time to file an application for condonation of delay as the applicant has also challenged the validity of order dated 17.05.2013 AnnexureA/3. In addition, the applicant shall also pay separate court fee as applicant has challenged two orders in one civil revision.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.12116/2012 06.02.2015 Mr. N.K. Mishra, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the order dated 17.08.2012 office is directed to list the writ petition along with W.P.No.2693/2012 after a week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb W.P.No.10451/2012 06.02.2015 Shri Lavkush Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri P.S. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of order dated 21.07.2011 contained in AnnexureP/1 passed by respondent No.3 by which the order of recovery has been passed against the petitioners.
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners be granted liberty to submit a fresh representation to respondent No.5, namely the Joint Director, Treasury and Account, Rewa and the aforesaid authority be directed to decide the representations submitted by the petitioners.
On the other learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in case petitioners submits representations, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioners submits representations within the period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today the respondent No.5, namely the Joint Director, Treasury and Account, Rewa, shall decide the representations within two months from the date of filing of such a representation by a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb R.P.No.875/2013 06.02.2015 Mr. K.C. Ghildhiyal, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Singh learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. A.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents.
When the query was put to learned counsel for the applicant whether the theory of substantial representation of estate of deceased would apply to suit for partition, learned counsel for the applicant prays for a short adjournment to enable him to examine the aforesaid aspects.
As prayed, list next week.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.12438/2012 06.02.2015 Mr. S.U. Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue of this writ petition to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb Conc. Case No.1920/2014 06.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Office report indicates that the service of notice to respondent No.2 is awaited.
Let the contempt petition be listed as soon as the service of notice to respondent No.2 is served.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb Conc. Case No.1772/2014 06.02.2015 Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Office report indicates that the respondent No.2 has not been served. The contempt petition be listed as soon as the service of notice to respondent No.2 is served.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb Conc. Case No.1902/2014 06.02.2015 Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue of this contempt petition to the respondent No.1.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb M.A.No.2147/2014 06.02.2015 Mr. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission as well on I.A. No.13433/2014.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice on merit as well as on the aforesaid I.A. to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.11488/2012 06.02.2015 Mr. Deepak Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.10977/2012 06.02.2015 Shri A.Usmani, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri P.S. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous by the efflux of time.
Accordingly, same is dismissed.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.15085/2008(S) 06.02.2015 Shri Dilip Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A. Agrawal, learned counsel for the Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board is no longer in existence and the petitioner be permitted to amend the cause title and to incorporate Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd.
The aforesaid prayer has not been opposed by learned counsel for the Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd.
In view of the aforesaid submission, let necessary amendment in the cause title be carried out during the course of the day.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb M.A.No.3731/2007 06.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Let the default pointed out by the office be rectified within period of two weeks, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to this Court.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.7357/2012 06.02.2015 Shri K.N. Pathia, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.
With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for quashment of orders dated 30.04.2012 and 27.01.2010 contained in AnnexureP/8 and P/9 respectively.
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with regard to his grievance the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Horticulture and Food Processing, Bhopal and the aforesaid authority be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner. I s further submitted that the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a representation against the order of punishment dated 27.01.2010 before the appellate authority and the said authority be directed to decide the representation in a time bound manner. On the other learned counsel for the respondents submits that in case petitioner submits representation same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation within the period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today to the Secretary, Ministry of Horticulture and Food Processing, Bhopal, the aforesaid authority shall decide the representation by a speaking order within two months. The petitioner shall file an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay against the order dated 27.01.2010 and same shall be dealt with in accordance with law expeditiously by the appellate authority. Needless to state that if the petitioner is found fit for promotion the petitioner shall be accorded the benefit of promotion with all consequential benefits. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.8911/2012 06.02.2015 Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file an additional return.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.8887/2012 06.02.2015 List along with W.P.No.8911/2012.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.10070/2012 06.02.2015 Shri Z.M. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the order passed in execution proceedings in civil revision.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.14287/2012 06.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. As prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let the petition be listed in week commencing 16 t h February, 2015.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb R.P.No.10/2015 05.02.2015 Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Mr. Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2 and 3.
This review petition has been filed seeking review of order dated 03.12.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.10273/2014.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were arrayed as respondent No.3 and 4 in Writ Petition No.10273/2014, however, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of without issuing notices to the applicants.
The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
In view of the fact that order dated 03.12.2014 was passed by this Court without issuing notices to the applicants, the order dated 03.12.2014 is hereby recalled.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.10273/2014 is restored to file.
Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge rm Conc. No.1736/2014 05.02.2015 Mr. Arup Kumar Das, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the contempt petition with liberty to file a writ petition.
Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb M.A.No.3316/2011 05.02.2015 None present for the appellant even when the matter is taken up in the second round.
Mr. Gulab Sohane, learned counsel for the respondents.
It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal .
Accordingly, the miscellaneous appeal is dismissed as for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge sb C.R.No.264/2010 05.02.2015 None present for the applicant even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the revision.
Accordingly, the revision is dismissed as for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.15882/2013 05.02.2015 Shri S.Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Praveen Sen, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, 4 and 5.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the next week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.1142/2015 05.02.2015 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.819/2014 05.02.2015 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.21864/2011 05.02.2015 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge sb M.A.No.4048/2008 05.02.2015 None present for the appellant even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the miscellaneous appeal.
Accordingly, the Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed as for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge sb M.A.No.5053/2007 05.02.2015 None present for the appellant even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the miscellaneous appeal.
Accordingly, the Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed as for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge sb M.A.No.2944/2010 05.02.2015 None present for the appellant even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the miscellaneous appeal.
Accordingly, the Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed as for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge sb M.A.No.2007/2010 05.02.2015 None present for the appellant even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the miscellaneous appeal.
Accordingly, the Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed as for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge sb M.A.No.4048/2008 05.02.2015 None present for the appellant even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the miscellaneous appeal.
Accordingly, the Miscellaneous appeal is dismissed as for want of prosecution (Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Conc. No.2008/2014 05.02.2015 Shri N.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the contempt petition to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.11396/2014 05.02.2015 Shri R. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Subhash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his averments made in the writ petition has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2004 SCC Online 3638.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 prays for and is granted two weeks' time to produce answer scripts of the petitioner of physics and mathematics.
Let the writ petition be listed for further order on 23 r d February, 2015.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.10789/2014 05.02.2015 Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 09.06.2014 passed by Nazul Officer, Mandla, by which the review petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as barred by limitation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Nazul Officer, Mandla, had passed an order on 08.12.2009, however, the same was approved by the Collector on 23.12.2009. The petitioner had filed an application for review on 19.01.2010, which was clearly within limitation and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Nazul Officer in the impugned order that the application of review filed by the petitioner is barred by limitation is perverse and is factually incorrect. The aforesaid aspects of the matter could not be disputed by learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The Nazul Officer, Mandla, had passed an order dated 08.12.2009 which was approved by the Collector on 23.12.2009 However, the petitioner had filed the application for review on 19.01.2010. The petition for review was filed by the petitioner within limitation and, therefore, the Collector grossly erred in holding that the review petition filed by the petitioner is beyond prescribed period of limitation.
For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order dated 09.06.2014 passed by Collector is hereby quashed. The Collector is directed to decide the review petition filed by the petitioner on merits in accordance with law by a speaking order expeditiously.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed. C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb s C.R.No.11/2011 05.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Let the record of the courts below be sent for. Heard on the question of admission. Revision is admitted for hearing. Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.9230/2014 05.02.2015 Shri R.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1.
Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to take recourse to the remedy prescribed under Section 16(4) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb M.A.No.3444/2010 05.02.2015 Mrs. Devika Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent No.1 and 2 though served.
Shri Pramendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Heard on I.A.No.10834/2010, an application for condonation of delay.
For the reason stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application is made out. Accordingly, the delay in filing the application is condoned, I.A.No.10834/2010 is allowed.
Also heard on the question of admission. The appeal is admitted for hearing. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this appeal to the respondent No.1 and 2.
Notice need not be issued to the respondent No.3 as respondent No.3 is already represented by its counsel.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb M.A.No.3177/2010 05.02.2015 Mrs. Devika Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
The appeal is admitted for hearing. As prayed for by Mrs. Devika Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal be listed along with M.A.Nos.3181/2010, 3178/2010, 3183/2010 and 3185/2010 analogously for final hearing under an appropriate category as per the scheme framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.20494/2011 05.02.2015 Mr. K.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent respondent No.1 to 5.
With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to the respondent to promote the petitioner on the post of Head Clerk.
When the matter was taken up today, leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted the petitioner be granted liberty to submit the representation to to respondent No.2, namely the Commissioner, Public Instruction Department, Bhopal in the light of the circular contained in AnnexureP/4 dated 22.06.2009 and the aforesaid authority be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously by a speaking order.
On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents submits that in case such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2, namely the Commissioner, Public Instruction Department, Bhopal to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, and the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent No.2 in the light of circular contained in AnnexureP/4 dated 22.06.2009 by a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb W.P.No.20856/2011 05.02.2015 Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kumaresh Pathak, learned Deputy Advocate General for the for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the arguing counsel Mr. Ajit Singh is out of station.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after four weeks.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.20713/2011 05.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file reply.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.4999/2007 04.02.2015 None for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1.
Mr. J.K.Pillai, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
None for the respondent No.3 and 4. Mr. Sanjeev Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 28.03.2007 by which the Director of Gulab Shikshan Samiti, Kotma, District Anuppur, which is a society which runs the school, has directed to close the school. The petitioner also seeks a direction to respondent No.4 to deposit the entire amount of provident fund of the teachers from 1987 to 1999 with interest. The petitioner has also sought the relief against respondent Nos.3 and 4 which are office bearers of the society. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 run the school in which the members of the petitionerassociation are employed as teachers. The aforesaid institution does not receive any grantin aid from the State Government. In the circumstances aforesaid, direction sought for by the petitioner to respondents No.3 and 4 to reopen the school, cannot be granted.
So far as the grievance of the petitioner with regard to payment of provident fund is concerned, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the institution run by respondent nos.3 and 4 is complying with the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 from 1999 onwards. It is further submitted that for the period from 1987 to 1999, the respondent No.2 has issued the arrest warrant against office bearers of the society and action is being taken for recovery of the amount in question. It is further submitted that in case the members of the petitioner association approach the respondent No2, namely the Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner, Jabalpur for disbursement of the amount which has already been deposited by respondent Nos.3 and 4, the same shall be disbursed to the members of the petitioner association as per their eligibility.
In view of aforesaid submission, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the members of the petitioner association approach the respondent No.2, namely the Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner, Jabalpur, the aforesaid authority shall reimburse the amount of provident fund to the members of the petitioner association as per their eligibility.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge a MCC No.284/2015 04.02.2015 Mr. Sudeep Patel, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on I.A.No.1408/2015, an application for condonation of delay.
For the reason stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application is made out.
Accordingly, the delay in filing the application is condoned, I.A.No.1408/2015 is allowed.
Also heard on application for restoration of M.A.No.1751/2011.
For the aforementioned reasons I find sufficient cause for restoration of M.A.1751/2011 is made out.
Accordingly, M.A.No.1751/2011 is restored. MCC is allowed.
Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of the M.A.No.1751/2011.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb MCC No.2746/2014 04.02.2015 Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on I.A.No.17076/2014, an application for condonation of delay.
For the reason stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application is made out.
Accordingly, the delay in filing the application is condoned, I.A.No.17076/2014 is allowed.
Also heard on application for restoration of M.A.No.474/2004.
For the aforementioned reasons I find sufficient cause for restoration of M.A.4928/2012 is made out.
Accordingly, M.A.No.474/2004 is restored. MCC is allowed.
Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of the M.A.No.474/2004.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.11822/2012 04.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted three days' time to file a rejoinder.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.830/2015 04.02.2015 Shri S.D. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment in order to enable him to place on record copy of order dated 30.06.1997.
As prayed, list the writ petition in the next week.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb Conc. No.21/2015 04.02.2015 Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the contempt petition to the respondent No.2.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb Conc. No.16/2015 04.02.2015 Shri Parag Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the contempt petition to the respondent No.2.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb M.A.No.1727/2014 04.02.2015 Ms. Savita, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Sudhir Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission. The appeal is admitted for hearing. Let the record of the Claims Tribunal be sent for.
Notice need not be issued to the respondent as respondent is already represented through its counsel.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb M.A.No.230/2015 04.02.2015 Mr. J.L. Soni, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Govind Patel, learned counsel for the respondent on advance notice.
Heard on the question of admission. The appeal is admitted for hearing. Let the record of the Claims Tribunal be sent for.
Notice need not be issued to the respondent as respondent is already represented through its counsel.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb MCC No.31/2015 04.02.2015 Mr. Anurag Shivhare, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard.
This application has been filed for restoration of W.P.No.19785/2014.
After going through the averments made in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause in the application is made out for restoration of W.P.No.19785/2014.
Accordingly, W.P.No.19785/2014 is restored. MCC is allowed.
Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of the W.P.No.19785/2014.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb C.R.No.37/2015 04.02.2015 Mr. Amit Kumar Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.
Learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the civil revision with liberty to challenge the order in appeal which has been preferred by the applicant.
Accordingly, the revision is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rule.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb M.A.No.240/2015 04.02.2015 Mr. Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants.
Appeal is admitted for hearing. Let the record of the Claims Tribunal be sent for.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of this appeal to the respondentS.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb W.P.No.574/2015 04.02.2015 Mr. A.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the validity of the circular dated 3rd January, 2011 issue by the General Administration Department, Government of M.P. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.
C.C.as per rule.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb M.A.No.2264/2009 04.02.2015 On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice on merit as well as I.A. No.6147/2014 to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb M.A.No.4044/2009 04.02.2015 On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice on merit of this appeal to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.14336/2010 04.02.2015 Mr. P.S. Gaharwar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents.
With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks a direction to the respondent to promote the petitioner on the post of Deputy Controller.
When the matter was taken up today, leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with regard to his grievance the petitioner has submitted a representation AnnexureP/2 to respondent No.2, namely the Controller, Printing and Publishing Department, Bhopal and the aforesaid authority be directed to decide the representation submitted by the petitioner expeditiously by a speaking order.
On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents submits that in case such a representation is submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 namely the Controller, Printing and Publishing Department, Bhopal to decide the representation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, and the same shall be considered and decided by the respondent No.2 by a speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb W.P.No.5443/2013 04.02.2015 Ms. Neelam Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A.No.512/2015 an application for impleadment of respondent No.2 and 3.
For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed.
Let necessary correction in the cause title be carried out within 10 days .
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within two weeks, issue notice of thine writ petition to the newly added respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb M.A.No.2493/2014 04.02.2015 List along with C.R.No.496/2014.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb C.R.No.495/2014 04.02.2015 List along with C.R.No.496/2014.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb C.R.No.496/2014 04.02.2015 Shri Rakesh Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the nonapplicant No.2.
In view of the objection raised by learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the nonapplicant prays for and is granted three weeks' time to value the relief claimed in the crossobjection and to pay the court fee accordingly.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.12648/2005 03.02.2015 Shri Saket Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for the respondents. Heard.
In this petition under Section 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 23.09.2004 passed by the Additional Director, M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board by which the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 under Section 34 of the M.P. Krushi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been allowed.
The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the respondent No.1 is a registered trader who carries on business of sale and purchase of foodgrains in the premises of petitioner Samiti. Notices were sent to respondent No.1 from time to time to submit accounts and to pay market fee. However, respondent No.1 neither produced the accounts books nor paid the market fee. The petitioner thereupon referred the matter to the Tehsildar for recovery of the amount of market fee as arrears of land revenue. The license of respondent No.1 was also suspended vide order dated 23.05.1995.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Additional Director, M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board which was allowed vide order dated 23.09.2004. In the aforesaid factual background the petitioner has approached this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appeal preferred by the Respondent no.1 was barred by limitation and specific plea was taken in this regard in the impugned order. However, the respondent No.2 namely, Additional Director, M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board without deciding the objection with regard to the limitation has decided the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 on merits.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. The order of suspension of license of respondent No.1 has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 33 of the Act. Against the aforesaid order, an appeal lies under Section 34 to the Appellate Authority. Section 34(2) of the Act provides that an appeal shall lie within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that petitioner had taken specific plea that the appeal is barred by limitation. It was further submitted by the petitioner that respondent No.1 had not disclosed as to when the copy of the order was served upon him. However, the Appellate Authority without deciding the objection raised by the petitioner proceeded to decide the appeal on merits and set aside the order by which the license of the petitioner was suspended.
The Appellate Authority despite the specific objections being raised by the petitioner had failed to adjudicate the issue whether the appeal preferred by respondent No.1 was within limitation. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order dated 23.09.2004 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the Additional Director, M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board to adjudicate the issue with regard to limitation before proceeding to decide the appeal on merits.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb F.A.No.706/2014 03.02.2015 Shri Umesh Kumar Vaidya , learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission as well as I.A.No.13082/2014.
The appeal is admitted for hearing. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice on merit as well as aforesaid I.A. to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in case during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant is dispossessed he shall suffer irretrievable prejudice.
Taking into account the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants and in view of the decisions rendered in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. V. Federal Motors (P), (2005) 1 SCC 705 and Pabbathi Venkataramaiah Chetty V. Pabbathi N.Rathnamaiah Chetty and Others (2007) 3 SCC 151, it is directed that execution of the impugned decree in so far as it directs delivery of possession shall remain stayed till next date of hearing, subject to compliance of money part of the decree by the appellants and furnishing security to the satisfaction of the trial Court within a period of four weeks for due performance of the decree which may ultimately be passed against the appellants in terms of Order 41 Rule 5(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Let the appeal be listed for orders on admission after receipt of the record.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.8591/2011 03.02.2015 Shri Satyendra Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice on merit as well as interim relief of the writ petition to the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the relevant time there was no post of Fireman in the Nagar Panchayat Amarpatan, and therefore, the Labour Court grossly erred in reinstating the petitioner on the post of Fireman.
In view of the aforesaid submissions and facts of the case, the impugned award shall remain stayed subject to compliance of provisions under Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.12717/2011 03.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Let the petition be listed before another Bench.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.21099/2011 03.02.2015 Shri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous by the efflux of time.
Accordingly, same is dismissed.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.11837/2011 03.02.2015 Shri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous by the efflux of time.
Accordingly, same is dismissed.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.11644/2011 03.02.2015 Ms. Kishwar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Petition is admitted for hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file a rejoinder.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.10946/2011 03.02.2015 Shri S.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to raise the issues raised in the writ petition in an appropriate proceedings as and when occasion so arises.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.8178/2011 03.02.2015 Shri A. Shivhare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri P. Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the for the intervenor.
Shri Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted a week's time to file reply to the application for intervention.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.8006/2011 03.02.2015 Shri Amit Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.1 to 4.
Shri A. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 Heard on the question of admission. When the matter taken up today, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents submitted that the Collector vide order dated 02.05.2011 had requisitioned the godown for storage of foodgrains for the years 2011 to 2012 and the order impugned in the instant writ petition has lost its efficacy by efflux of time.
In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Panel Lawyer nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
Accordingly, same is dismissed. C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb MCC No.137/2015 03.02.2015 Mr. Ishan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant.
Heard on I.A.No.608/2015, an application for condonation of delay.
For the reason stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application is made out.
Accordingly, the delay in filing the application is condoned, I.A.No.608/2015 is allowed.
Also heard on application for restoration of S.A.No.808/2010 which was dismissed on account of noncompliance of peremptory order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 03.08.2010.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that inadvertently order dated 03.08.2010 could not be complied with even otherwise it is well settled in law that for the fault on the part of the counsel party should no penalized.
For the aforementioned reasons I find sufficient cause for restoration of S.A.808/2010 is made out.
Accordingly, S.A.No.808/2010 is restored. MCC is allowed.
Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of the S.A.No.808/2010.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb MCC No.130/2015 03.02.2015 Shri S.Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant.
List before another Bench.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb MCC No.125/2015 03.02.2015 Shri Imtiaz Husain, learned counsel for the applicant.
For the reasons stated in the application in I.A.No.1238/2015, office objection is ignored.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1238/2015 is allowed. Also heard on the I.A.No.555/2015, an application for condonation of delay.
For the reason stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application is made out. Accordingly, the delay in filing the application is condoned.
Also heard on application for restoration of S.A.870/1998 which was dismissed for non compliance of the common conditional order on 21.04.2014.
For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause for restoration of the S.A.No.870/1998 is made out. Accordingly, S.A.No.870/1998 is restored MCC is allowed.
Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of the S.A.No.870/1998. C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb MCC No.117/2015 03.02.2015 Mr. A.P.Shah, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard on I.A.No.1076/2015, an application for condonation of delay.
For the reason stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, I find sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application is made out.
Accordingly, the delay in filing the application is condoned, I.A.No.1076/2015 is allowed.
Also heard on application for restoration of M.A.No.4928/2012 which was dismissed for non compliance of the peremptory order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 21.04.2014.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the process fee for service of notice to non applicant No.3 have already paid on 05.12.2013.However, the aforesaid fact could not be brought to the notice of the court when the order is passed.
For the aforementioned reasons I find sufficient cause for restoration of M.A.4928/2012 is made out.
Accordingly, M.A.No.4928/2012 is restored. MCC is allowed.
Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of the M.A.No.4928/2012.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.19867/2014 03.02.2015 Parties through their counsel. Shri Swapnil Ganguli, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb M.A.No.252/2015 03.02.2015 Mr. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on I.A.No.1361/2015 for the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed.
Requirement of filing the certified copy of the award is dispensed with.
Also heard on I.A.No.1273/2015. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already deposited 50% of the amount awarded by the Claim Tribunal.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, the recovery of the balance amount under the impugned award shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.
List this appeal for analogous hearing along with M.A.Nos.245/2015, 247/2015, 248/2015, 251/2015, 252/2015, 253/2015, 254/2015, 255/2015 and 256/2015.
C.C. as per rules.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.17930/2014 03.02.2015 Mr. Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
In compliance of the order dated 29.01.2015 the certified copy is being filed during the course of the day.
As prayed, list in the next week. Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb R.P.No.875/2013 16.01.2015 Parties through their counsel. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicants, let the review petition be listed on 23.01.2015.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge a R.P.No.956/2013 16.01.2015 Mr. Amit Bhurrak, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 4 is accepted by Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate.
Let two extra sets of review petition be supplied to learned Government Advocate.
In view of office report that notice issued to respondent No.5 has been received back unserved on account of incorrect address, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to pay fresh process fee on correct and complete address for service of this review petition on respondent No.5 within two weeks from today.
As prayed, let the review petition No.955/2013 be listed along with this review petition for analogous hearing.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge a Cr.A. No.1995/2014 14.01.2015 Counsel for the parties present. Report regarding service of notice on I.A.No.14895/2014 for condonation of delay is awaited.
Report be immediately called for and list the case thereafter.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
a
Cr.A. No.2935/2014
14.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Appellant is permitted to remove the default within a week.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
a
M.Cr.C.No.11760/2014
14.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Notice on I.A.No.15153/2014, an application for condonation of delay have returned back unserved.
Mr. Vijay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General is directed to pay process fee for issuance of notice on correct and proper address of the respondents within two weeks.
Notice be made returnable within a period of eight weeks.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
a
M.Cr.C.No.19390/2014
14.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. As prayed by learned counsel for the applicant, a week's time is granted.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
a
Cr.A. No.2046/2013
14.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Heard on I.A. No.1648/2014, an application for taking additional document on record.
On due consideration, same is allowed. The documents are directed to be taken on record.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
a
Cr.A. No.1921/2014
14.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Record of the Trial Court is still awaited. It be listed for admission along with record.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
a
CRA No.391/2010
14.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Heard on I.A.No.24490/2014, which is an application for exemption from personal appearance of the appellant before this Court.
For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed.
Henceforth, appellant is exempted from personal appearance before this Court. He shall now appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Betul on 13.05.2015 and on such other dates as may be directed by that Court.
C.C. as per rules.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.391/2010
14.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Heard on I.A.No.8006/2014, which is an application for exemption from personal appearance before this Court.
For the reasons stated in the application the same is allowed.
Henceforth, appellant is exempted from personal appearance before this Court. He shall now appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Burhanpur on 13.05.2015 and on such other dates as may be directed by that Court.
C.C. as per rules.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.841/2014
14.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. I.A. No.23707/2014, which is an application for urgent hearing, is taken up for consideration.
Taking into account the averments made in the application and in the facts of the case, the application is allowed. Let the matter be listed for final hearing under an appropriate category as per the scheme framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
Accordingly, I.A. is allowed.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.2400/2006
12.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. It is reported that Radhliya appellant No.1 is not traceable and his wife has also left him.
We accordingly direct for issuance of fresh non bailable warrant for his arrest which shall be executed on him through the Superintendent of Police, Sehore, who is directed to make every endeavor to execute the warrant. Show cause notice be also issued to the surety of Radhliya.
List the case for order in the week commencing 9 t h February, 2015.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.1133/2009
12.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Report regarding execution of warrant on appellant is awaited. Report be immediately called for.
List the case in the week commencing 2 n d February, 2015.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.2981/2013
12.01.2015
Shri Yogesh Dhande, Government Advocate for the appellant/State.
Shri Abhinav Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents.
Respondent no.2, Deepak alias Deepu is present in person. His presence be marked.
Henceforth, he is exempted from personal appearance before this Court. He shall now appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Harda on 12.05.2015 and on such other dates as may be directed by that Court.
C.C. as per rules.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.543/2014
12.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Respondent No.2, Rajendra Prasad Vishwakarma is present in person. His presence be marked.
Henceforth, he is exempted from personal appearance before this Court. He shall now appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna on 12.05.2015 and on such other dates as may be directed by that Court.
C.C. as per rules.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.1446/2009
12.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Appellant No.3, Suresh is present in person. His presence be marked. His nonappearance on earlier date is condoned.
Henceforth, he is exempted from personal appearance before this Court. He shall now appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal on 12.05.2015 and on such other dates as may be directed by that Court.
C.C. as per rules.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.2675/2014
12.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Respondent, Anand Kumar Gupta is present in person. His presence be marked.
Henceforth, he is exempted from personal appearance before this Court. He shall now appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panna on 12.05.2015 and on such other dates as may be directed by that Court.
C.C. as per rules.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.2903/2013
12.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Respondent No.2, Gyanendra Singh @ Golu is present in person. His presence be marked.
Henceforth, he is exempted from personal appearance before this Court. He shall now appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna on 12.05.2015 and on such other dates as may be directed by that Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents prays for a short date to ensure the presence of respondent No.3.
Prayed allowed.
List the case on 9 t h February, 2015 for appearance of respondent No.3.
C.C. as per rules.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.1475/1999
12.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Appellant Bhuria alias Santosh is present in person. His presence be marked. His nonappearance on 01.12.2014 is condoned.
Henceforth, he is exempted from personal appearance before this Court. He shall now appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat on 12.05.2015 and on such other dates as may be directed by that Court.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
W.P.No.2973/2014
09.01.2015
Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge RM W.P.No.3563/2014 09.01.2015 Shri K.M.Bundela, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge RM W.P.No.3693/2014 09.01.2015 Shri S.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge RM W.P.No.3999/2014 09.01.2015 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge RM Writ Petition No.4648/2012 09.01.2015 Parties through their counsel. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Review Petition No.389/2013 09.01.2015 Mr. Vijit Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this court to withdraw I.A.No.5500/2013.
Accordingly, same is dismissed as withdrawn. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after a week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Review Petition No.800/2014 09.01.2015 Mr. M.L.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. B.D.Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this court to withdraw the review petition with liberty to challenge the order dated 23.11.2012.
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Review Petition No.816/2014 09.01.2015 Mr. R.P.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A.No.180/2015. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The applicant is permitted to seek review/challenge order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14758/2014.
Accordingly, I.A. No.180/2015 is allowed. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the review petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.3452/2012 09.01.2015 Mr. J.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition be heard analogously along with W.P.No.3427/2012, W.P.No.3428/2012, W.P.No. and 3451/2012.
Accordingly, let the writ petition be listed along with aforesaid writ petitions for analogous hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.4501/2012 09.01.2015 Mr. P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. J.KJain, Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the order dated 01.07.2008 passed in the proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.
C.C.as per rule.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.5192/2012 09.01.2015 Mr. S.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb W.P.No.5263/2012 09.01.2015 Mr. A.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
I.A. No.4968/2014, is taken up for consideration.
The petitioner is permitted to engage Mr. Rahul Tripathi as his counsel.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Mr. Rahul Tripathi as counsel for the petitioner in the cause list.
Accordingly, I.A.No.5968/2014 is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.5735/2012 09.01.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr. K.K.Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.5741/2012 09.01.2015 Mr. Vijyant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file an application for amendment of the writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb W.P.No.5810/2012 09.01.2015 Parties through their counsel. Let the writ petition be listed before another Bench, if possible in the next week.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.14919/2014 06.01.2015 Shri R.K.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) V.Judge Sb CRA No.2811/2013 07.01.2015 Counsel for the parties present. It is sad that despite two opportunities, the counsel for the appellant did not prepare the case. He prays for last opportunity to prepare the case.
Ten days' time is granted to the counsel for the appellant to prepare and argue the case.
List after ten days.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ks
CRR No.1220/2014
07.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that as the senior counsel who has to argue the case is undergoing angiography, the hearing of the case be deferred till 14 t h January, 2015.
List the case in the week commencing 27 t h January, 2015.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRR No.1219/2014
07.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that as the senior counsel who has to argue the case is undergoing angiography, the hearing of the case be deferred till 14 t h January, 2015.
List the case in the week commencing 27 t h January, 2015.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
MCC No.2087/2006
07.01.2015
Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in compliance of the order dated 03.04.2006 passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16505/2005 (S) the respondents have already settled the claim of the petitioner.
However, learned counsel for the applicant has disputed the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has submitted that he be granted liberty to approach such other forum as may be available to the applicant under the law.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, the applicant is granted liberty to take recourse of the remedy as may be available to him under the law. Needless to state that, it would be open to the applicant to demonstrate in the proceeding which may be instituted by him that his claim with regard to regularization for the period in question has not been decided in accordance with rules.
With the aforesaid observation the application is disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.1860/2014
07.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. As against the impugned judgment the State has preferred a Special Leave to Appeal, MCRC No.11005/2014.
The learned counsel is granted liberty to assist the State in CRCR No.11005/2014 and prays for withdrawal of the appeal.
Prayer allowed.
With the aforesaid liberty the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.1756/2014
07.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. As a last opportunity learned counsel for the applicant prays for a short adjournment.
Prayer allowed.
List the case after two weeks. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRR No.1217/2014
07.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that as the senior counsel who has to argue the case is undergoing angiography, the hearing of the case be deferred till 14 t h January, 2016.
List the case in the week commencing 27 t h January, 2015.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
Writ Petition No.17231/2014
06.01.2015
Let the writ petition be listed after two weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.6616/2008 06.01.2015 Shri Aditya Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
The writ petition has already been dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2014, therefore, no order is required to be passed.
Let the record of the writ petition be consigned to the record room.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.13679/2014 06.01.2015 Shri Rajmani Mishra, counsel under authority of Shri Deepak Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Order dated 17.12.2014 indicates that the matter was directed to be listed after four weeks.
In view of the aforesaid order, let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 23 r d February, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.14919/2014 06.01.2015 Parties through their counsel. Let reply on behalf of the respondents be filed within a further period of two weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Review Petition No.324/2014 06.01.2015 Shri Aditya Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the review petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.22382/2013 06.01.2015 Smt. Saroj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb CRA No.769/2012 06.01.2015 Counsel for the parties present. Counsel for the appellant prays for a short adjournment.
List the case in the next week.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.868/2013
06.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Heard on I.A.No.24628/2014, which is a repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant No.2, Om Prakash Gond.
His first bail application has recently been dismissed after full consideration on merits vide order dated 17.02.2014.
We find no good ground to take a different view.
The application is dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.2176/2010
06.01.2015
Mr. Sidharath Datt, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Brahamdatt Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.No.24013/2014.
Accordingly, I.A.No.24013/2014, is dismissed as withdrawn.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
RK
CRA No.2029/2010
06.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Counsel for the appellant states that with the passage of time I.A.No.24088/2014 has become infructuous.
The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
RK1
W.P.No.19939/2014
22.12.2014
Mr. Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguli, learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondents.
It appears that inadvertently, the aforesaid writ petition has been listed before the Division Bench. The matter pertains to Single Bench.
Let the same be listed before appropriate Single Bench on 28.12.2014.
(ALOK ARADHE) (M.K.MUDGAL)
V.Judge V.Judge
RK
W.P.No.20213/2014
22.12.2014
None for the petitioner. Mr. Swapnil Ganguli, learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondents.
Let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(ALOK ARADHE) (M.K.MUDGAL)
V.Judge V.Judge
RK
W.A.No.479/2012
22.12.2014
Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Let the writ appeal be listed immediately after ensuing winter vacation.
(ALOK ARADHE) (M.K.MUDGAL)
V.Judge V.Judge
RK
W.A.No.480/2012
22.12.2014
Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Let the writ appeal be listed immediately after ensuing winter vacation.
(ALOK ARADHE) (M.K.MUDGAL)
V.Judge V.Judge
RK
Writ Petition No.16368/2014
20.12.2014
Mr. Tirthraj Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Seth , learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents in this writ petition.
The petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashment of seniority list of the selected candidates on the post of Village Employment Assistant and further for a direction to the respondent No.4 for selecting him on the basis of addition of green card holder marks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in respect of grievance of the petitioner an appeal lies before the Collector. He further prayed that petitioner be granted liberty to file an appeal before the Collector and the Collector be directed to decide the same expeditiously by a speaking order.
On the other hand, learned Panel lawyer for the respondents submits that if the petitioner files an appeal, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, petitioner files an appeal before the Collector within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, same shall be considered and decided by the Collector by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of submission of appeal. Needless to state, the Collector shall afforded an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16498/2014 03.12.2014 Mr. Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents on advance notice.
Heard on on the question of admission. On payment of P.F. by registered post with acknowledgment due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition on merit to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition involving similar issue has been entertained and interim relief has been granted. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the order dated 29.10.2014 passed in W.P.No.15937/2014.
In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and with a view to maintain parity, it is directed that the petitioners may appear in on going selection process provisinally subject to final decision of this writ petition and merely because the petitioners have not succeeded in the selection process undertaken, their services should not be terminated without leave of this Court. It is further directed that even if any of the petitioners are found to be ineligible to participate in the on going selection process because of their being overage, they be permitted to appear in the selection process provisionally to avoid further complication in the matter and if they submit the application form, the same be accepted.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16204/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. P. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment in order to enable him to seek instruction.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17118/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Ajit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A.No.16253/2014 for the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed.
Let the necessary amendment be carried out within a week.
Notice on behalf of newly added respondents is accepted by Mr. P.N.Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.20039/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as I.A.No.16323/2014 for interim relief.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition as well as aforesiad I.A.No.16329/2014 for interim relief to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of six weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are trying to create their party interest in respect of the property in question.
In view of aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, it is directed that the parties shall not create any third party interest and shall maintain status quo as it exists today, with regard to possession in respect of land in question.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16981/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. V.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16992/2014 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents submits that election of the Municipal Corporation, Satna has already taken place.
In view of aforesaid submissions nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
Accordingly, same is dismissed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.20281/2012 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Let the writ petition be listed after winter vacation.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.20041/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of six weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.2116/2010 20.12.2014 None for the petitioner. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.6048/2012 20.12.2014 None for the petitioner. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16774/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for consideration for prayer of interim relief on 07.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17826/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Aditya Adhikari, learned senior counsel with Mr. A.K.Gupta, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. N.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 08.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16307/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Aditya Adhikari, learned senior counsel with Mr. A.K.Gupta, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. N.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 08.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13764/2014 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed for consideration of I.A.No.15766/2014 in week commencing 19.01.2015.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.8621/2014 20.12.2014 None for the petitioner. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.5542/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Lalji Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondentState.
Mr. Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the respondentBank.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach this Court as and when occasion so arises.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in the return that the impugned order has been withdrawn, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.18246/2011 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in the return that the impugned order has been withdrawn, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.20003/2014 20.12.2014 Petitioner in person.
Let the Writ Petition be listed on 12.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19973/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Devendra Gangrade, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three days time to file an application for impleadement of Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission as respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.18073/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Y. M. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Any appointment made to the post in question shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.18063/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Parth Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.18036/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Sachin Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17982/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17965/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. R.M. Singroul, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a Public Interest Litigation.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17945/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17831/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing alongwith W.P.No.16623/2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15807/2010 20.12.2014 Learned counsel for the parties. Shri Amit Seth, Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file rejoinder.
Interim relief granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15658/2010 20.12.2014 Learned counsel for the parties. Shri Amit Seth, Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file rejoinder.
Interim relief granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17789/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice on merit as well as interim relief.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that writ petition involving similar issue has already been entertained and interim order has been granted.
In view of aforesaid submissions and with a view to maintain parity, it is directed that two posts of Compounder Unani shall be kept vacant, till the next date of hearing.
Let the writ petition be listed in week commencing 19.01.2015.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17887/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Sanjay Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Review Petition No.791/2014 20.12.2014 Let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17401/2014 20.12.2014 Let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17466/2014 20.12.2014 Let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17332/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. M. Shafiqullah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17236/2014 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. K.S.Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file an application for amendment explaining the delay caused in filing the writ petition.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17255/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. D.S.Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17191/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of six weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17092/2014 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents prays for an adjournment in order to enable him to seek instruction in the matter and to file the return, if so advised.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in week commencing 12.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17101/2014 20.12.2014 Ms. Sudha Goutam, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of six weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11411/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. A. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed as withdrawn.
` (Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16148/2014 20.12.2014 List the matter along with W. P. No.14654/2010.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14654/2010(S) 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14836/2010 20.12.2014 None for the parties.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15150/2010 20.12.2014 Learned counsel for the parties. Shri Mahendra Pateria, Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file rejoinder.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15855/2012 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A. No.3356/2014, an application for taking proposal on record.
On due consideration, the same is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.No.3356/2014, is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15814/2010 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Pleadings are complete. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15848/2010 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A. No.13443/2010, an application for taking additional document on record.
On due consideration, the same is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.No.13443/2014, is allowed. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15898/2010 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Let the writ petition be listed before another Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.1382/2011 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16240/2010 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.3942/2014 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, let the writ petition be list after ensuing winter vacation .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.4216/2006 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.11401/2014, an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.429/2007(S) 20.12.2014 Mr. M.Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment in order to enable him to appraise this Court whether anything survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
As prayed, list after ensuing winter vacation .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.2914/2013 20.12.2014 None for the parties.
As prayed, list after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11232/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Tribhuvan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 16.02.2013 by which the services of the petitioner from the post of Ward Boy has been terminated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged on the post of Ward Boy on contract basis, however, his services has been terminated abruptly by the impugned order 16.02.2013. It is further submitted that with regard to his grievance the petitioner be granted the liberty to submit a representation to the Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Bankhedi, District Hoshangabad, namely respondent No.4 and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 to consider and decide the representation which may be submitted by the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submits that in case such a representation is submitted, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation with regard to his grievance within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of C.C. of the order passed today to the respondent No.4, namely Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Bankhedi, District Hoshangabad, the aforesaid authorities shall consider and decide the said representation expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such a representation by speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK RK Writ Petition No.7756/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their respective counsel. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.7909/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.7935/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. Let the record of the Labour Court be sent for. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.8039/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Sudeep Patel, learned counsel for the parties.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK W.P.No.19759/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures to Shri Ashok Bake, who ordinarily represents the respondents.
In view of the aforesaid submission, office is directed to reflect the name of Mr. Ashok Bake as counsel for the respondentbank in the cause list.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 20.12.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK W.P.No.19764/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. S.Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition on merits as well as I.A.No.16188/2014 for stay to the respondents.
Heard on the question of interim relief. In the meanwhile, parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to property in question.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19778/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19788/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Agnivesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19820/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. S.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file an application for amendment of the writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.299/2012 19.12.2014 Shri Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17097/2012 19.12.2014 Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19454/2013 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the return.
Let the writ petition be listed in the month of January, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.8233/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing alongwith W.P.No.7492/2014 .
Interim order passed on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.8096/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing alongwith W.P.No.7492/2014 .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.7492/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.
Interim order passed on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.7890/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri K.K.Verma, counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file an application for impleadement of the additional respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14558/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures to Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned senior counsel, who represents the respondent No.2.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Kaustub Singh as counsel for the respondent No.2 in the cause list.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 12 t h January, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14558/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures to Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned senior counsel, who represents the respondent No.2.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Kaustub Singh as counsel for the respondent No.2 in the cause list.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 12 t h January, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13132/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2.
Let the matter be listed on 20.12.2014 for consideration of I.A.No.15167/2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11614/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. V.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous as civil suit has already been decided. However, he submits that the petitioners be granted the liberty to challenge the orders dated 05.05.2014 and 08.07.2014, in appeal, if an occasion so arises.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11411/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16156/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11384/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to place on record certain documents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11380/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Anoop Nair, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11362/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11325/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. S.A.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11295/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11290/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. H.C. Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11282/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. H.C. Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11272/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let the records of the Labour Court and Industrial Court be sent for and list the writ petition for orders on admission, after receipt of the records.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11197/2014 19.12.2014 Let the reply, if any, on behalf of the respondents be filed within a period of three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.5192/2007 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. O.P.Namdeo, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.1002/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12514/2010 19.12.2014 Shri R.B.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
Heard on I.A.No.8718/2012. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen, I.A.No.8718/2012, is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed under the category of senior citizens/promotion whichever is earlier for final hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12438/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12450/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12753/2010 19.12.2014 Shri Ashok Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the relief claimed in the writ petition has already been granted to the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid submission, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12899/2010 19.12.2014 Mr. A.Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
Mr. A. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if occasions so arises.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13266/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As agreed to learned counsel for the parties, let I.A.No.688/2011 be listed for consideration in the week commencing 12 t h January, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13345/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. The writ petition has already been admitted. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13213/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.18492/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.3501/2014, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration I.A.No.3501/2014, same is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13697/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Rajesh Mainderetta, Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the return shall be filed on or before 6 t h January, 2015.
Let the writ petition be listed on 12 t h of January, 2015 for consideration of I.A.No. 12439/2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13514/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the return.
Heard on I.A.No.2280/2014, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration I.A.No.2280/2014, same is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13689/2010 19.12.2014 learned counsel for the parties. Petition has already been admitted for hearing. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13674/2010 19.12.2014 learned counsel for the parties. Petition has already been admitted for hearing. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13466/2010 19.12.2014 Learned counsel for the parties. In view of the order dated 08.09.2014, no order are required to be passed on I.A.No.11227/2014.
Shri Rajesh Dubey, Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file rejoinder.
Let the writ petition be listed for orders on admission thereafter.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15134/2014 18.12.2014 Ms. Deepti Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petition has been rendered infructuous.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12184/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Y.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appropriate application.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12218/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Subodh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices are made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14508/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. S.P.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14907/2014 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.
Interim order passed on earlier occasion shall continue till next date of hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14686/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Ansul Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S.Chabbra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for and is granted three weeks time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19848/2014 18.12.2014 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12381/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. B.N.Pandey, Learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Manash Verma, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks time to file additional return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19798/2014 18.12.2014 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19770/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Praveen Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19837/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19827/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19819/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. H. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19854/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15334/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. M.K.Meshram, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19231/2011 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Rejoinder filed vide I.A.No.3094/2013, is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.No.3094/2013 is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11909/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, prays for and is granted three weeks time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13246/2013 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Let the writ petition be listed on 12/01/2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19863/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19736/2014 18.12.2014 Shri Bhaskar Pandey, Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures to Shri Ashish Shroti, who ordinarily represents the respondents.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Ashish Shroti as counsel for the respondent. Ashish Shroti prays for and is granted three weeks time to seek instruction and to file reply, if occasions so arises.
Let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19750/2014 18.12.2014 Shri Monesh Sahu, Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures to Shri Anup Nair, who ordinarily represents the respondents.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Anup Nair as counsel for the respondent. Shri Nair prays for and is granted three weeks time to seek instruction and to file reply, if occasions so arises.
Let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing alongwith W.P.No.7063/2013 after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK W.P.No.19424/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Atul Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition as well as interim relief to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK W.P.No.5580/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel with Mr. Manoj Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. P.N.Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has missed the case in the cause list. He prays for short adjournment.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 19.12.2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK R.P.No.644/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. K.C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Office is directed to submit service report with regard to service of notice on the respondents.
Let the Review Petition be listed thereafter.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15953/2014 18.12.2014 As prayed, by learned counsel for the petitioners let the writ petition be listed for an analogous hearing alongwith W.P.No.3283/2014 on 19.12.2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.173/2006 18.12.2014 Mr. Dhruv Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Hemant Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.16.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is cognizable by Division Bench.
Let the writ petition be listed before Division Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15998/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed before another Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15634/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed before another Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15623/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. M.W.Hyder, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered notice with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15599/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered notice with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15454/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered notice with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15471/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. S.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment in order to enable him to examine whether the petitioner has any alternative remedy.
As prayed, list after ensuing winter vacation .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15468/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. S.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment in order to enable him to examine whether the petitioner has any alternative remedy.
As prayed, list after ensuing winter vacation .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15492/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. G.S.Bhagel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12356/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. B.D.Singh, Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures to Mr. Ashish Shroti, learned counsel, who ordinarily represents the respondentBank.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Mr. Ashish Shroti as counsel for the respondentBank.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in week commencing 05.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12342/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. N.K. Tiwari, Learned Counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with Acknowledgement Due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12309/2014 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. K.Rohan, Learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He prays for and and is granted four weeks time to file the Return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12304/2014 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. J.K.Pillai, Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12294/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Rajesh Kumar Patel, Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this court to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12358/2014 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Atulanand Awasthi, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the stand taken by respondent No.1 in Paras 2 and 3 of the return, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition to challenge the recommendation for implementation of new Ph.D. Ordinance formulated by Rani Durgawati Vishvavidhyalaya.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid. C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12313/2010 18.12.2014 Shri Sumit Kanojiya, Learned counsel for the petitioner .
None for respondents those served. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks time to seek instruction in the matter and to appraise this court whether anything survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11972/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.151/2013, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration I.A.No.151/2013, is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11650/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. The writ petition has already been admitted. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12722/2011 18.12.2014 List the matter along with W. P. No.11732/2011.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11413/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.311/2012, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration I.A.No.311/2012, is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.10903/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I. A. No.4297/2013, an application for final hearing at motion stage and I.A.No.8785/2013, an application for urgent hearing/final disposal of the case.
On due consideration I.A.No.4297/2013 and I.A.No.8785/2013, are allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.10755/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.11653/2014 and I.A.No.6484/2014, applications for final disposal at motion stage.
On due consideration I.A.No.11653/2014 and I.A.No.6484/2014, are allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.10641/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.10563/2014, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration I.A.No.10563/2014, is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.10286/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.11474/2012, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration I.A.No.11474/2012, is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12207/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks time to file the rejoinder.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.9902/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.8381/2014, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration, I.A.No.8381/2014 is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.9693/2012(S) 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.8320/2014, is taken on record.
Accordingly, the I.A.No.8320/2014 is allowed. Heard on I.A.No.8322/2014, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration, I.A.No.8322/2014 is also allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK 17.12.2014 Lawyers are abstaining from appearing in the Court today on account of call given by Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association. Only three working days are left for winter vacation to commence, therefore, it is not possible to list the matter before vacation.
Let the case be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14104/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. R.K Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment in order to enable him to point out the contingencies under which an aggrieved person can be permitted to byepass an alternative remedy provided to him under the statute.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 18.12.2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13335/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. D.R.Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this court to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13298/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. Shailendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13354/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. D.R.Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13310/2014 16.12.2014 Shri Rajeev Badkur, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file civil suit with regard to his grievance.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13388/2014 16.12.2014 Ms. P. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two days' time to file an application for amendment of the writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13379/2014 16.12.2014 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13212/2014 16.12.2014 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13140/2014 16.12.2014 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.7318/2010 16.12.2014 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13284/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. J. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition on merits as well as interim relief to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14023/2014 16.12.2014 None present for the petitioners even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14227/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. D.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14353/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. S.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this to withdraw the this writ petition with the liberty to file a fresh application giving particulars of Khasara before the trial court.
In view of aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court that in case petitioner files such an application, same shall be dealt with by the trial court without being influenced by the order dated 28.08.2014.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.9036/2014 16.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Amit Sen, learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file Return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17473/2014 16.12.2014 Ku. Sudipta Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a short adjournment.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19500/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. Lalji Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13930/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. S.Baig, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to approach this Court, as and when occasions so arises.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13938/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. Manas Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with Acknowledgement Due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13974/2014 16.12.2014 Ms. Vinita Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner before the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Revenue Book Circular.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13974/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. Abdhesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner before the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Revenue Book Circular.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14057/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. M. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with Acknowledgement Due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Prayer for interim relief shall be considered on the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14065/2014 16.12.2014 Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file an application for review of the order dated 27.06.2014.
In view of aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14082/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures to Mr. Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents.
In view of aforesaid submission, office is directed to reflect the name of Mr. Praveen Dubey as counsel for the respondents in the cause list.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in week commencing on 12.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14092/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. Anurag Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Heard.
In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, inter alia, seek a direction to the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously within a fixed time limit.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in Civil Suit No.6A/2006, the evidence of the parties have already been closed and the arguments in the case are to be heard.
In view of aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.10314/2007 16.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.11967/2014, is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.No.11967/2014 is allowed. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14787/2007 16.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. The events mentioned in I.A.No.14364/2014, are taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.No.14364/2014 is allowed. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.4879/2006 16.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.141/2008 and I.A.No.10008/2013.
On due consideration, same are allowed. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.22706/2003 16.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.15673/2014. On due consideration, same is allowed. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.2441/2007 16.12.2014 Mrs. Neelima Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 21.06.1999 passed by erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher from the date when similarly situated persons were appointed and to accord him all the consequential benefits.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.34/2014 16.12.2014 Mrs. Neelima Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 21.06.1999 passed by erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher from the date when similarly situated persons were appointed and to accord him all the consequential benefits.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.33/2014 16.12.2014 Mrs. Neelima Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 21.06.1999 passed by erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher from the date when similarly situated persons were appointed and to accord him all the consequential benefits.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.6389/2007(S) 16.12.2014 Shri Riyaz Mohd., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 21.06.1999 passed by erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher from the date when similarly situated persons were appointed and to accord him all the consequential benefits.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.9675/2008 16.12.2014 Rejoinder filed vide I.A.No.4290/2014, is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.No.4290/2014 is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.10848/2008 16.12.2014 As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the second week of January, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14014/2008 16.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Let order dated 25.09.2014 be complied with within a period of four weeks, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13396/2008 16.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.10940/2012. On due consideration, same is allowed. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13094/2011 15.12.2014 Mr. M.K.Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A.No.15938/2014, an application for urgent hearing.
For reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed under appropriate category for final hearing as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. In the meanwhile, it is open to the respondents to file Return, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19450/2014 15.12.2014 Mr. Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19365/2014 15.12.2014 Mr. A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to place on record a copy of application for condonation of delay filed along with revision.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 17.12.2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19379/2014 15.12.2014 Mr. M.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to initiate proceedings for contempt for noncompliance of order dated 24.02.2011 passed in W.P.No.3031/2011.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13913/2014 15.12.2014 Mr. V.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for adjournment in order to enable him to file an affidavit of the petitioners stating as to whether award has been passed by Land Acquisition Officer.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed immediately after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK3 Writ Petition No.14518/2014 15.12.2014 Mr. A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A.No.15610/2014 an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Let the amended writ petition be filed within a week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14514/2014 15.12.2014 Mr. Sudhanshu Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by Registered post with acknowledgment due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.9873/2004 15.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents, while inviting our attention of this Court to document AnnexureR/3 submits that the scheme in which the petitioner is claiming appointment on the post of Second Guruji is no longer in existence. It is further submitted that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous by the efflux of time.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed having been rendered infructuous.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.746/2004(S) 15.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Let order dated 01.04.2013 be complied with within a period of four weeks, failing which, the writ petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.20427/2012 15.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, let the I.A.No.15779/2014 be listed for consideration in the first week of January, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16636/2013 15.12.2014 Parties through their counsel.
Heard on I.A.No.15884/2014On due consideration, same is allowed. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in appropriate category as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK A.C.No.59/2014 15.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.17304/2014. For the reasons stated in the I.A., the requirement of filing original copy of agreement is dispensed with.
Accordingly, I.A.No. 17304/2014 is disposed of. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by Registered post with acknowledgment due within four weeks, issue notice of the Arbitration Case to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK A.C.No.60/2014 15.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.17305/2014. For the reasons stated in the I.A., the requirement of filing original copy of agreement is dispensed with.
Accordingly, I.A.No. 17305/2014 is disposed of. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by Registered post with acknowledgment due within four weeks, issue notice of the Arbitration Case to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK A.C.No.58/2014 15.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.17302/2014. For the reasons stated in the I.A., the requirement of filing original copy of agreement is dispensed with.
Accordingly, I.A.No. 17302/2014 is disposed of. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by Registered post with acknowledgment due within four weeks, issue notice of the Arbitration Case to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.10057/2014 9.12.2014 List the matter along with W. P. No.12613/2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta Writ Petition No.12613/2013 9.12.2014 Shri Vijya Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on admission.
On payment of process fee by Registered post with Acknowledgment Due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
Notices are made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta Writ Petition No.18564/2012 9.12.2014 Petitioner in person.
Mr. Tabrez Sheikh learned counsel for the respondent University.
The petitioner has discharged the authority of his counsel. He appears in person.
Petitioner prays for three days' time to file an application for amendment of the petition in order to enable him to challenge the order dated 27.09.2014.
Let the Writ Petition be listed for final disposal on 13.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta CONC. No.2276/2013 9.12.2014 List the matter along with W. P. No.18564.2012 on 13.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta Writ Petition No.13139/2008 9.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. Let the same be listed in an appropriate category for final hearing of the case as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta category Writ Petition No.6669/2004 9.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. Let the same be listed in an appropriate category for final hearing of the case as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
The personal appearance of the officers is dispensed with.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta Writ Petition No.4330/2011 9.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. List the matter along with W. P. No.4330.2011.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta Writ Petition No.10887/2008 9.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I. A. No.4532/2009, an application for urgent hearing of the petition.
The application is allowed. Let it be listed in appropriate category for final hearing as per the scheme framed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta Review Petition No.753/2014 9.12.2014 Smt. Rajeshwari Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, she has filed an application seeking amendment in the Review Petition.
Office is directed to trace the application and place it on record.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta Review Petition No.19101/2011 9.12.2014 Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner interalia has assailed the validity of the order dated 06.08.2011 by which application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate basis has been rejected on the ground that the same has been filed beyond 7 years of the date of death of the employee. It is further submitted that the GAD, Government of M.P. has issued order dated 31.12.2011, the same should not be rejected on the ground that it has been filed beyond a period of 7 years from the date of death of an employee. It is further submitted that the competent authority Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh for grant of appointment on compassionate basis.
On the other hand, Shri Rahul Jain, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents submits that the Superintendent of Police, District Tikamgarh shall take action in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid submissions and agreed to learned counsel for the parties and in view of the order dated 13.12.2011, the impugned order dated 06.08.2011 is hereby quashed. The respondent No.4, Superintendent of Police, District Tikamgarh is directed to decide the application seeking compassionate appointment submitted by petitioner dated 02.06.2011 afresh in the light of order dated 13.12.2014 passed by GAD, Government of M.P. expeditiously, by speaking order preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge M.Cr.C.No.15577/2014 14.01.2015 Mr. Vijay Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General for the applicant/State.
Heard on I.A.No.19360/2014, which is an application for condonation of delay.
There is a delay of 6 days in filing the present application.
The delay is accordingly condoned and the application is allowed.
Also heard on admission. This application filed by the State under Section 378(3) iof the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of leave is directed against the judgment dated 16.06.2014 passed in Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, whereby the respondent has been acquitted for offences under Section 363, 366, 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution story, on 27.06.2012, the respondent took away the prosecutrix from the lawful custody of her parents and committed rape on her.
The trial Court on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record, has acquitted the respondent of the offences alleged against him. Learned Deputy Advocate General for the applicant/State submitted that the trial Court grossly erred in holding that the age of the prosecutrix is between 19 to 20 years. It was further submitted that the marksheet of the prosecutrix was produced, which indicated that her date of birth is 07.07.1996 and on the date of incident, she was minor.
We have considered the submission made by learned Deputy Advocate General and have perused the record. The prosecutrix who has been examined as PW3 in paragraph5 of her evidence has stated that she is aged about 19 to 20 years. From the statement of the prosecutrix, we find that she was a consenting party to the act in question and was major on the date of incident. PW6, Smt. Ritu Dubey, who has been examined to prove the date of birth of the prosecutrix, in her evidence has stated that she is unable to disclose the basis for making an entry with regard to date of birth of the prosecutrix in the school register. PW1 Gangaram, who is father of the prosecutrix, in his evidence has also stated that at the time of incident, the prosecutrix was major. The respondent has committed sexual inter course with the prosecutrix for a period of six months without any objection and she has delivered a child also. No medical examination of the prosecutrix has been conducted. The findings recorded by the trial Court can neither be said to be perverse nor based on no evidence. Learned Deputy Advocate General was unable to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. The trial Court on the basis of meticulous appreciation of evidence on record has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence against the respondent.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in the application. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
a
CRA No.2903/2013
12.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Appellant Bhuria alias Santosh is present in person. His presence be marked. His nonappearance on 01.12.2014 is condoned.
Henceforth, he is exempted from personal appearance before this Court. He shall now appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat on 12.05.2015 and on such other dates as may be directed by that Court.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.1475/1999
12.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Appellant Bhuria alias Santosh is present in person. His presence be marked. His nonappearance on 01.12.2014 is condoned.
Henceforth, he is exempted from personal appearance before this Court. He shall now appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat on 12.05.2015 and on such other dates as may be directed by that Court.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
W.P.No.2973/2014
09.01.2015
Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge RM W.P.No.3563/2014 09.01.2015 Shri K.M.Bundela, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge RM W.P.No.3693/2014 09.01.2015 Shri S.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge RM W.P.No.3999/2014 09.01.2015 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge RM Writ Petition No.4648/2012 09.01.2015 Parties through their counsel. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Review Petition No.389/2013 09.01.2015 Mr. Vijit Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this court to withdraw I.A.No.5500/2013.
Accordingly, same is dismissed as withdrawn. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after a week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Review Petition No.800/2014 09.01.2015 Mr. M.L.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. B.D.Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this court to withdraw the review petition with liberty to challenge the order dated 23.11.2012.
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Review Petition No.816/2014 09.01.2015 Mr. R.P.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A.No.180/2015. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. The applicant is permitted to seek review/challenge order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14758/2014.
Accordingly, I.A. No.180/2015 is allowed. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the review petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.3452/2012 09.01.2015 Mr. J.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition be heard analogously along with W.P.No.3427/2012, W.P.No.3428/2012, W.P.No. and 3451/2012.
Accordingly, let the writ petition be listed along with aforesaid writ petitions for analogous hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.4501/2012 09.01.2015 Mr. P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. J.KJain, Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the order dated 01.07.2008 passed in the proceeding under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.
C.C.as per rule.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.5192/2012 09.01.2015 Mr. S.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. S.M.Lal, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb W.P.No.5263/2012 09.01.2015 Mr. A.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
I.A. No.4968/2014, is taken up for consideration.
The petitioner is permitted to engage Mr. Rahul Tripathi as his counsel.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Mr. Rahul Tripathi as counsel for the petitioner in the cause list.
Accordingly, I.A.No.5968/2014 is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.5735/2012 09.01.2015 Parties through their counsel. Mr. K.K.Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.5741/2012 09.01.2015 Mr. Vijyant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file an application for amendment of the writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb W.P.No.5810/2012 09.01.2015 Parties through their counsel. Let the writ petition be listed before another Bench, if possible in the next week.
(ALOK ARADHE) Judge sb W.P.No.14919/2014 06.01.2015 Shri R.K.Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(ALOK ARADHE) V.Judge Sb CRA No.2811/2013 07.01.2015 Counsel for the parties present. It is sad that despite two opportunities, the counsel for the appellant did not prepare the case. He prays for last opportunity to prepare the case.
Ten days' time is granted to the counsel for the appellant to prepare and argue the case.
List after ten days.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ks
CRR No.1220/2014
07.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that as the senior counsel who has to argue the case is undergoing angiography, the hearing of the case be deferred till 14 t h January, 2015.
List the case in the week commencing 27 t h January, 2015.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRR No.1219/2014
07.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that as the senior counsel who has to argue the case is undergoing angiography, the hearing of the case be deferred till 14 t h January, 2015.
List the case in the week commencing 27 t h January, 2015.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
MCC No.2087/2006
07.01.2015
Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in compliance of the order dated 03.04.2006 passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.16505/2005 (S) the respondents have already settled the claim of the petitioner.
However, learned counsel for the applicant has disputed the aforesaid aspect of the matter and has submitted that he be granted liberty to approach such other forum as may be available to the applicant under the law.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, the applicant is granted liberty to take recourse of the remedy as may be available to him under the law. Needless to state that, it would be open to the applicant to demonstrate in the proceeding which may be instituted by him that his claim with regard to regularization for the period in question has not been decided in accordance with rules.
With the aforesaid observation the application is disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.1860/2014
07.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. As against the impugned judgment the State has preferred a Special Leave to Appeal, MCRC No.11005/2014.
The learned counsel is granted liberty to assist the State in CRCR No.11005/2014 and prays for withdrawal of the appeal.
Prayer allowed.
With the aforesaid liberty the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.1756/2014
07.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. As a last opportunity learned counsel for the applicant prays for a short adjournment.
Prayer allowed.
List the case after two weeks. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRR No.1217/2014
07.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. It is stated by learned counsel for the applicant that as the senior counsel who has to argue the case is undergoing angiography, the hearing of the case be deferred till 14 t h January, 2016.
List the case in the week commencing 27 t h January, 2015.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
Writ Petition No.17231/2014
06.01.2015
Let the writ petition be listed after two weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.6616/2008 06.01.2015 Shri Aditya Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.K. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
The writ petition has already been dismissed vide order dated 04.07.2014, therefore, no order is required to be passed.
Let the record of the writ petition be consigned to the record room.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.13679/2014 06.01.2015 Shri Rajmani Mishra, counsel under authority of Shri Deepak Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Order dated 17.12.2014 indicates that the matter was directed to be listed after four weeks.
In view of the aforesaid order, let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 23 r d February, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.14919/2014 06.01.2015 Parties through their counsel. Let reply on behalf of the respondents be filed within a further period of two weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Review Petition No.324/2014 06.01.2015 Shri Aditya Narayan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the review petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb Writ Petition No.22382/2013 06.01.2015 Smt. Saroj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge sb CRA No.769/2012 06.01.2015 Counsel for the parties present. Counsel for the appellant prays for a short adjournment.
List the case in the next week.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
RK
CRA No.868/2013
06.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Heard on I.A.No.24628/2014, which is a repeat application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant No.2, Om Prakash Gond.
His first bail application has recently been dismissed after full consideration on merits vide order dated 17.02.2014.
We find no good ground to take a different view.
The application is dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
sb
CRA No.2176/2010
06.01.2015
Mr. Sidharath Datt, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Brahamdatt Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of I.A.No.24013/2014.
Accordingly, I.A.No.24013/2014, is dismissed as withdrawn.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
RK
CRA No.2029/2010
06.01.2015
Counsel for the parties present. Counsel for the appellant states that with the passage of time I.A.No.24088/2014 has become infructuous.
The application is, accordingly, dismissed.
(AJIT SINGH) (ALOK ARADHE)
JUDGE JUDGE
RK1
W.P.No.19939/2014
22.12.2014
Mr. Ajeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguli, learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondents.
It appears that inadvertently, the aforesaid writ petition has been listed before the Division Bench. The matter pertains to Single Bench.
Let the same be listed before appropriate Single Bench on 28.12.2014.
(ALOK ARADHE) (M.K.MUDGAL)
V.Judge V.Judge
RK
W.P.No.20213/2014
22.12.2014
None for the petitioner. Mr. Swapnil Ganguli, learned Deputy Advocate General for the Respondents.
Let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(ALOK ARADHE) (M.K.MUDGAL)
V.Judge V.Judge
RK
W.A.No.479/2012
22.12.2014
Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Let the writ appeal be listed immediately after ensuing winter vacation.
(ALOK ARADHE) (M.K.MUDGAL)
V.Judge V.Judge
RK
W.A.No.480/2012
22.12.2014
Mr. Parag Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Let the writ appeal be listed immediately after ensuing winter vacation.
(ALOK ARADHE) (M.K.MUDGAL)
V.Judge V.Judge
RK
Writ Petition No.16368/2014
20.12.2014
Mr. Tirthraj Pillai, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Seth , learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents in this writ petition.
The petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashment of seniority list of the selected candidates on the post of Village Employment Assistant and further for a direction to the respondent No.4 for selecting him on the basis of addition of green card holder marks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that in respect of grievance of the petitioner an appeal lies before the Collector. He further prayed that petitioner be granted liberty to file an appeal before the Collector and the Collector be directed to decide the same expeditiously by a speaking order.
On the other hand, learned Panel lawyer for the respondents submits that if the petitioner files an appeal, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case, petitioner files an appeal before the Collector within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, same shall be considered and decided by the Collector by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of submission of appeal. Needless to state, the Collector shall afforded an opportunity of hearing to all the parties. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16498/2014 03.12.2014 Mr. Rajendra Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate for the respondents on advance notice.
Heard on on the question of admission. On payment of P.F. by registered post with acknowledgment due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition on merit to the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition involving similar issue has been entertained and interim relief has been granted. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the order dated 29.10.2014 passed in W.P.No.15937/2014.
In view of aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and with a view to maintain parity, it is directed that the petitioners may appear in on going selection process provisinally subject to final decision of this writ petition and merely because the petitioners have not succeeded in the selection process undertaken, their services should not be terminated without leave of this Court. It is further directed that even if any of the petitioners are found to be ineligible to participate in the on going selection process because of their being overage, they be permitted to appear in the selection process provisionally to avoid further complication in the matter and if they submit the application form, the same be accepted.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16204/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. P. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment in order to enable him to seek instruction.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17118/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Ajit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A.No.16253/2014 for the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed.
Let the necessary amendment be carried out within a week.
Notice on behalf of newly added respondents is accepted by Mr. P.N.Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.20039/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission as well as I.A.No.16323/2014 for interim relief.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition as well as aforesiad I.A.No.16329/2014 for interim relief to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of six weeks.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents are trying to create their party interest in respect of the property in question.
In view of aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, it is directed that the parties shall not create any third party interest and shall maintain status quo as it exists today, with regard to possession in respect of land in question.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16981/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. V.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16992/2014 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents submits that election of the Municipal Corporation, Satna has already taken place.
In view of aforesaid submissions nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
Accordingly, same is dismissed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.20281/2012 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Let the writ petition be listed after winter vacation.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.20041/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Dinesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of six weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.2116/2010 20.12.2014 None for the petitioner. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.6048/2012 20.12.2014 None for the petitioner. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16774/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. V.K.Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for consideration for prayer of interim relief on 07.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17826/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Aditya Adhikari, learned senior counsel with Mr. A.K.Gupta, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. N.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 08.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16307/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Aditya Adhikari, learned senior counsel with Mr. A.K.Gupta, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. N.K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 08.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13764/2014 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, by learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed for consideration of I.A.No.15766/2014 in week commencing 19.01.2015.
Interim order granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.8621/2014 20.12.2014 None for the petitioner. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.5542/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Lalji Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondentState.
Mr. Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the respondentBank.
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach this Court as and when occasion so arises.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in the return that the impugned order has been withdrawn, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.18246/2011 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in the return that the impugned order has been withdrawn, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.20003/2014 20.12.2014 Petitioner in person.
Let the Writ Petition be listed on 12.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19973/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Devendra Gangrade, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three days time to file an application for impleadement of Madhya Pradesh State Election Commission as respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.18073/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Y. M. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
Any appointment made to the post in question shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.18063/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Parth Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.18036/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Sachin Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17982/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Mohd. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17965/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. R.M. Singroul, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a Public Interest Litigation.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17945/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17831/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. A.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing alongwith W.P.No.16623/2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15807/2010 20.12.2014 Learned counsel for the parties. Shri Amit Seth, Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file rejoinder.
Interim relief granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15658/2010 20.12.2014 Learned counsel for the parties. Shri Amit Seth, Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file rejoinder.
Interim relief granted on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17789/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Heard on the question of admission as well as interim relief.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice on merit as well as interim relief.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that writ petition involving similar issue has already been entertained and interim order has been granted.
In view of aforesaid submissions and with a view to maintain parity, it is directed that two posts of Compounder Unani shall be kept vacant, till the next date of hearing.
Let the writ petition be listed in week commencing 19.01.2015.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17887/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Sanjay Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Review Petition No.791/2014 20.12.2014 Let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17401/2014 20.12.2014 Let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17466/2014 20.12.2014 Let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17332/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. M. Shafiqullah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17236/2014 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. K.S.Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file an application for amendment explaining the delay caused in filing the writ petition.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17255/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. D.S.Rajput, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17191/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Pushpendra Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of six weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17092/2014 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents prays for an adjournment in order to enable him to seek instruction in the matter and to file the return, if so advised.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in week commencing 12.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17101/2014 20.12.2014 Ms. Sudha Goutam, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of six weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11411/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. A. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed as withdrawn.
` (Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16148/2014 20.12.2014 List the matter along with W. P. No.14654/2010.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14654/2010(S) 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14836/2010 20.12.2014 None for the parties.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15150/2010 20.12.2014 Learned counsel for the parties. Shri Mahendra Pateria, Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file rejoinder.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15855/2012 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A. No.3356/2014, an application for taking proposal on record.
On due consideration, the same is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.No.3356/2014, is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15814/2010 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Pleadings are complete. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15848/2010 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A. No.13443/2010, an application for taking additional document on record.
On due consideration, the same is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.No.13443/2014, is allowed. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15898/2010 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Let the writ petition be listed before another Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.1382/2011 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16240/2010 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.3942/2014 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, let the writ petition be list after ensuing winter vacation .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.4216/2006 20.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.11401/2014, an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.429/2007(S) 20.12.2014 Mr. M.Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment in order to enable him to appraise this Court whether anything survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
As prayed, list after ensuing winter vacation .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.2914/2013 20.12.2014 None for the parties.
As prayed, list after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11232/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Tribhuvan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents.
With the consent of the parties the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 16.02.2013 by which the services of the petitioner from the post of Ward Boy has been terminated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged on the post of Ward Boy on contract basis, however, his services has been terminated abruptly by the impugned order 16.02.2013. It is further submitted that with regard to his grievance the petitioner be granted the liberty to submit a representation to the Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Bankhedi, District Hoshangabad, namely respondent No.4 and the writ petition be disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.4 to consider and decide the representation which may be submitted by the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer submits that in case such a representation is submitted, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner submits a representation with regard to his grievance within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of C.C. of the order passed today to the respondent No.4, namely Block Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Bankhedi, District Hoshangabad, the aforesaid authorities shall consider and decide the said representation expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such a representation by speaking order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK RK Writ Petition No.7756/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their respective counsel. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.7909/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.7935/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Ashok Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. Let the record of the Labour Court be sent for. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.8039/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Sudeep Patel, learned counsel for the parties.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK W.P.No.19759/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures to Shri Ashok Bake, who ordinarily represents the respondents.
In view of the aforesaid submission, office is directed to reflect the name of Mr. Ashok Bake as counsel for the respondentbank in the cause list.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 20.12.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK W.P.No.19764/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. S.Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition on merits as well as I.A.No.16188/2014 for stay to the respondents.
Heard on the question of interim relief. In the meanwhile, parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to property in question.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19778/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19788/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Agnivesh Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19820/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. S.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file an application for amendment of the writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.299/2012 19.12.2014 Shri Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17097/2012 19.12.2014 Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19454/2013 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the return.
Let the writ petition be listed in the month of January, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.8233/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing alongwith W.P.No.7492/2014 .
Interim order passed on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.8096/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing alongwith W.P.No.7492/2014 .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.7492/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.
Interim order passed on earlier occasion shall continue till the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.7890/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri K.K.Verma, counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file an application for impleadement of the additional respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14558/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures to Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned senior counsel, who represents the respondent No.2.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Kaustub Singh as counsel for the respondent No.2 in the cause list.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 12 t h January, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14558/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures to Shri Mrigendra Singh, learned senior counsel, who represents the respondent No.2.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Kaustub Singh as counsel for the respondent No.2 in the cause list.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the week commencing 12 t h January, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13132/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2.
Let the matter be listed on 20.12.2014 for consideration of I.A.No.15167/2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11614/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. V.K.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous as civil suit has already been decided. However, he submits that the petitioners be granted the liberty to challenge the orders dated 05.05.2014 and 08.07.2014, in appeal, if an occasion so arises.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11411/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16156/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11384/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Vishal Dhagat, learned counsel for petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to place on record certain documents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11380/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Anoop Nair, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11362/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. Alok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11325/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. S.A.Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11295/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the reply.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11290/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. H.C. Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11282/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. H.C. Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11272/2014 19.12.2014 Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let the records of the Labour Court and Industrial Court be sent for and list the writ petition for orders on admission, after receipt of the records.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11197/2014 19.12.2014 Let the reply, if any, on behalf of the respondents be filed within a period of three weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.5192/2007 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. O.P.Namdeo, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.1002/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12514/2010 19.12.2014 Shri R.B.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
Heard on I.A.No.8718/2012. Taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a senior citizen, I.A.No.8718/2012, is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed under the category of senior citizens/promotion whichever is earlier for final hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12438/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12450/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12753/2010 19.12.2014 Shri Ashok Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Anoop Nair, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the relief claimed in the writ petition has already been granted to the petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid submission, nothing survives for adjudication in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12899/2010 19.12.2014 Mr. A.Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
Mr. A. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if occasions so arises.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13266/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As agreed to learned counsel for the parties, let I.A.No.688/2011 be listed for consideration in the week commencing 12 t h January, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13345/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. The writ petition has already been admitted. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13213/2014 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.18492/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.3501/2014, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration I.A.No.3501/2014, same is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13697/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Rajesh Mainderetta, Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the return shall be filed on or before 6 t h January, 2015.
Let the writ petition be listed on 12 t h of January, 2015 for consideration of I.A.No. 12439/2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13514/2010 19.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file the return.
Heard on I.A.No.2280/2014, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration I.A.No.2280/2014, same is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13689/2010 19.12.2014 learned counsel for the parties. Petition has already been admitted for hearing. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13674/2010 19.12.2014 learned counsel for the parties. Petition has already been admitted for hearing. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13466/2010 19.12.2014 Learned counsel for the parties. In view of the order dated 08.09.2014, no order are required to be passed on I.A.No.11227/2014.
Shri Rajesh Dubey, Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks' time to file rejoinder.
Let the writ petition be listed for orders on admission thereafter.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15134/2014 18.12.2014 Ms. Deepti Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petition has been rendered infructuous.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12184/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Y.N.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file an appropriate application.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12218/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Subodh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notices are made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14508/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. S.P.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14907/2014 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Amit Seth, learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file reply.
Interim order passed on earlier occasion shall continue till next date of hearing.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14686/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Ansul Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S.Chabbra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 prays for and is granted three weeks time to file return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19848/2014 18.12.2014 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12381/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. B.N.Pandey, Learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Manash Verma, learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks time to file additional return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19798/2014 18.12.2014 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19770/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Praveen Namdeo, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19837/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Vipin Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19827/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19819/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. H. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19854/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15334/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. M.K.Meshram, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19231/2011 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Rejoinder filed vide I.A.No.3094/2013, is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.No.3094/2013 is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11909/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General, prays for and is granted three weeks time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13246/2013 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Let the writ petition be listed on 12/01/2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19863/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Vivek Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19736/2014 18.12.2014 Shri Bhaskar Pandey, Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures to Shri Ashish Shroti, who ordinarily represents the respondents.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Ashish Shroti as counsel for the respondent. Ashish Shroti prays for and is granted three weeks time to seek instruction and to file reply, if occasions so arises.
Let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19750/2014 18.12.2014 Shri Monesh Sahu, Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures to Shri Anup Nair, who ordinarily represents the respondents.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Shri Anup Nair as counsel for the respondent. Shri Nair prays for and is granted three weeks time to seek instruction and to file reply, if occasions so arises.
Let the writ petition be listed for analogous hearing alongwith W.P.No.7063/2013 after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK W.P.No.19424/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Atul Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition as well as interim relief to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK W.P.No.5580/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel with Mr. Manoj Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. P.N.Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has missed the case in the cause list. He prays for short adjournment.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 19.12.2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK R.P.No.644/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. K.C. Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Office is directed to submit service report with regard to service of notice on the respondents.
Let the Review Petition be listed thereafter.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15953/2014 18.12.2014 As prayed, by learned counsel for the petitioners let the writ petition be listed for an analogous hearing alongwith W.P.No.3283/2014 on 19.12.2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.173/2006 18.12.2014 Mr. Dhruv Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Hemant Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.16.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is cognizable by Division Bench.
Let the writ petition be listed before Division Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15998/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed before another Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15634/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Let the writ petition be listed before another Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15623/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. M.W.Hyder, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered notice with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15599/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. P.S.Tomar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered notice with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15454/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Atulanand Awasthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered notice with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15471/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. S.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment in order to enable him to examine whether the petitioner has any alternative remedy.
As prayed, list after ensuing winter vacation .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15468/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. S.P.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment in order to enable him to examine whether the petitioner has any alternative remedy.
As prayed, list after ensuing winter vacation .
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.15492/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. G.S.Bhagel, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12356/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. B.D.Singh, Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures to Mr. Ashish Shroti, learned counsel, who ordinarily represents the respondentBank.
Office is directed to reflect the name of Mr. Ashish Shroti as counsel for the respondentBank.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in week commencing 05.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12342/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. N.K. Tiwari, Learned Counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with Acknowledgement Due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12309/2014 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. K.Rohan, Learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He prays for and and is granted four weeks time to file the Return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12304/2014 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. J.K.Pillai, Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks time to file the return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12294/2014 18.12.2014 Mr. Rajesh Kumar Patel, Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this court to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12358/2014 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Mr. Atulanand Awasthi, Learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the stand taken by respondent No.1 in Paras 2 and 3 of the return, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition to challenge the recommendation for implementation of new Ph.D. Ordinance formulated by Rani Durgawati Vishvavidhyalaya.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid. C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12313/2010 18.12.2014 Shri Sumit Kanojiya, Learned counsel for the petitioner .
None for respondents those served. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted three weeks time to seek instruction in the matter and to appraise this court whether anything survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11972/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.151/2013, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration I.A.No.151/2013, is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11650/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. The writ petition has already been admitted. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12722/2011 18.12.2014 List the matter along with W. P. No.11732/2011.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.11413/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.311/2012, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration I.A.No.311/2012, is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.10903/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I. A. No.4297/2013, an application for final hearing at motion stage and I.A.No.8785/2013, an application for urgent hearing/final disposal of the case.
On due consideration I.A.No.4297/2013 and I.A.No.8785/2013, are allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.10755/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.11653/2014 and I.A.No.6484/2014, applications for final disposal at motion stage.
On due consideration I.A.No.11653/2014 and I.A.No.6484/2014, are allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.10641/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.10563/2014, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration I.A.No.10563/2014, is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.10286/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.11474/2012, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration I.A.No.11474/2012, is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.12207/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks time to file the rejoinder.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.9902/2010 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.8381/2014, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration, I.A.No.8381/2014 is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.9693/2012(S) 18.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Rejoinder filed vide I.A. No.8320/2014, is taken on record.
Accordingly, the I.A.No.8320/2014 is allowed. Heard on I.A.No.8322/2014, an application for urgent hearing.
On due consideration, I.A.No.8322/2014 is also allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK 17.12.2014 Lawyers are abstaining from appearing in the Court today on account of call given by Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association. Only three working days are left for winter vacation to commence, therefore, it is not possible to list the matter before vacation.
Let the case be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14104/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. R.K Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment in order to enable him to point out the contingencies under which an aggrieved person can be permitted to byepass an alternative remedy provided to him under the statute.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 18.12.2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13335/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. D.R.Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this court to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13298/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. Shailendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13354/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. D.R.Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13310/2014 16.12.2014 Shri Rajeev Badkur, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file civil suit with regard to his grievance.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13388/2014 16.12.2014 Ms. P. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two days' time to file an application for amendment of the writ petition.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13379/2014 16.12.2014 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13212/2014 16.12.2014 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13140/2014 16.12.2014 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.7318/2010 16.12.2014 None present for the petitioner even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13284/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. J. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition on merits as well as interim relief to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14023/2014 16.12.2014 None present for the petitioners even when the matter is taken up in the second round. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as for want of prosecution.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14227/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. D.K.Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14353/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. S.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this to withdraw the this writ petition with the liberty to file a fresh application giving particulars of Khasara before the trial court.
In view of aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court that in case petitioner files such an application, same shall be dealt with by the trial court without being influenced by the order dated 28.08.2014.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.9036/2014 16.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Amit Sen, learned Panel Lawyer prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file Return.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17473/2014 16.12.2014 Ku. Sudipta Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a short adjournment.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19500/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. Lalji Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13930/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. S.Baig, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to approach this Court, as and when occasions so arises.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13938/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. Manas Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with Acknowledgement Due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13974/2014 16.12.2014 Ms. Vinita Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner before the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Revenue Book Circular.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13974/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. Abdhesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner before the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Revenue Book Circular.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14057/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. M. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
On payment of process fee by registered post with Acknowledgement Due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
Prayer for interim relief shall be considered on the next date of hearing.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14065/2014 16.12.2014 Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty to file an application for review of the order dated 27.06.2014.
In view of aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14082/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply copy of the writ petition alongwith annexures to Mr. Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents.
In view of aforesaid submission, office is directed to reflect the name of Mr. Praveen Dubey as counsel for the respondents in the cause list.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in week commencing on 12.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14092/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. Anurag Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Heard.
In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners, inter alia, seek a direction to the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously within a fixed time limit.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in Civil Suit No.6A/2006, the evidence of the parties have already been closed and the arguments in the case are to be heard.
In view of aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.10314/2007 16.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.11967/2014, is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.No.11967/2014 is allowed. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14787/2007 16.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. The events mentioned in I.A.No.14364/2014, are taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.No.14364/2014 is allowed. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.4879/2006 16.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.141/2008 and I.A.No.10008/2013.
On due consideration, same are allowed. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.22706/2003 16.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.15673/2014. On due consideration, same is allowed. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.2441/2007 16.12.2014 Mrs. Neelima Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 21.06.1999 passed by erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher from the date when similarly situated persons were appointed and to accord him all the consequential benefits.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.34/2014 16.12.2014 Mrs. Neelima Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 21.06.1999 passed by erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher from the date when similarly situated persons were appointed and to accord him all the consequential benefits.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.33/2014 16.12.2014 Mrs. Neelima Giri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 21.06.1999 passed by erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher from the date when similarly situated persons were appointed and to accord him all the consequential benefits.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.6389/2007(S) 16.12.2014 Shri Riyaz Mohd., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the parties jointly submits that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 21.06.1999 passed by erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and as agreed to by them, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to issue an order of appointment to the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher from the date when similarly situated persons were appointed and to accord him all the consequential benefits.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.9675/2008 16.12.2014 Rejoinder filed vide I.A.No.4290/2014, is taken on record.
Accordingly, I.A.No.4290/2014 is allowed.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.10848/2008 16.12.2014 As prayed, let the writ petition be listed in the second week of January, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14014/2008 16.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Let order dated 25.09.2014 be complied with within a period of four weeks, failing which the petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13396/2008 16.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.10940/2012. On due consideration, same is allowed. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in an appropriate category, as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13094/2011 15.12.2014 Mr. M.K.Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A.No.15938/2014, an application for urgent hearing.
For reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Let the writ petition be listed under appropriate category for final hearing as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. In the meanwhile, it is open to the respondents to file Return, if so advised.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19450/2014 15.12.2014 Mr. Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by registered post with acknowledgement due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19365/2014 15.12.2014 Mr. A.D.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to place on record a copy of application for condonation of delay filed along with revision.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed on 17.12.2014.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.19379/2014 15.12.2014 Mr. M.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to initiate proceedings for contempt for noncompliance of order dated 24.02.2011 passed in W.P.No.3031/2011.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13913/2014 15.12.2014 Mr. V.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for adjournment in order to enable him to file an affidavit of the petitioners stating as to whether award has been passed by Land Acquisition Officer.
As prayed, let the writ petition be listed immediately after ensuing winter vacation.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK3 Writ Petition No.14518/2014 15.12.2014 Mr. A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on I.A.No.15610/2014 an application for amendment.
Taking into account the nature of proposed amendment and for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Let the amended writ petition be filed within a week.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.14514/2014 15.12.2014 Mr. Sudhanshu Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by Registered post with acknowledgment due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.9873/2004 15.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Shri Rahul Jain, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents, while inviting our attention of this Court to document AnnexureR/3 submits that the scheme in which the petitioner is claiming appointment on the post of Second Guruji is no longer in existence. It is further submitted that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous by the efflux of time.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed having been rendered infructuous.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.746/2004(S) 15.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Let order dated 01.04.2013 be complied with within a period of four weeks, failing which, the writ petition shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.20427/2012 15.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. As prayed, let the I.A.No.15779/2014 be listed for consideration in the first week of January, 2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.16636/2013 15.12.2014 Parties through their counsel.
Heard on I.A.No.15884/2014On due consideration, same is allowed. Let the writ petition be listed for final hearing in appropriate category as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK A.C.No.59/2014 15.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.17304/2014. For the reasons stated in the I.A., the requirement of filing original copy of agreement is dispensed with.
Accordingly, I.A.No. 17304/2014 is disposed of. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by Registered post with acknowledgment due within four weeks, issue notice of the Arbitration Case to the respondents.
Notices be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK A.C.No.60/2014 15.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.17305/2014. For the reasons stated in the I.A., the requirement of filing original copy of agreement is dispensed with.
Accordingly, I.A.No. 17305/2014 is disposed of. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by Registered post with acknowledgment due within four weeks, issue notice of the Arbitration Case to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK A.C.No.58/2014 15.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I.A.No.17302/2014. For the reasons stated in the I.A., the requirement of filing original copy of agreement is dispensed with.
Accordingly, I.A.No. 17302/2014 is disposed of. Heard on the question of admission. On payment of process fee by Registered post with acknowledgment due within four weeks, issue notice of the Arbitration Case to the respondents.
Notice be made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.10057/2014 9.12.2014 List the matter along with W. P. No.12613/2013.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta Writ Petition No.12613/2013 9.12.2014 Shri Vijya Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard on admission.
On payment of process fee by Registered post with Acknowledgment Due within a week, issue notice of this writ petition to the respondents.
Notices are made returnable within a period of four weeks.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta Writ Petition No.18564/2012 9.12.2014 Petitioner in person.
Mr. Tabrez Sheikh learned counsel for the respondent University.
The petitioner has discharged the authority of his counsel. He appears in person.
Petitioner prays for three days' time to file an application for amendment of the petition in order to enable him to challenge the order dated 27.09.2014.
Let the Writ Petition be listed for final disposal on 13.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta CONC. No.2276/2013 9.12.2014 List the matter along with W. P. No.18564.2012 on 13.01.2015.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta Writ Petition No.13139/2008 9.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. Let the same be listed in an appropriate category for final hearing of the case as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta category Writ Petition No.6669/2004 9.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. The writ petition is admitted for hearing. Let the same be listed in an appropriate category for final hearing of the case as per the scheme which has been framed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for final hearing of the cases.
The personal appearance of the officers is dispensed with.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta Writ Petition No.4330/2011 9.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. List the matter along with W. P. No.4330.2011.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta Writ Petition No.10887/2008 9.12.2014 Parties through their counsel. Heard on I. A. No.4532/2009, an application for urgent hearing of the petition.
The application is allowed. Let it be listed in appropriate category for final hearing as per the scheme framed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta Review Petition No.753/2014 9.12.2014 Smt. Rajeshwari Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, she has filed an application seeking amendment in the Review Petition.
Office is directed to trace the application and place it on record.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta Review Petition No.19101/2011 9.12.2014 Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Jain, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this writ petition, the petitioner interalia has assailed the validity of the order dated 06.08.2011 by which application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate basis has been rejected on the ground that the same has been filed beyond 7 years of the date of death of the employee. It is further submitted that the GAD, Government of M.P. has issued order dated 31.12.2011, the same should not be rejected on the ground that it has been filed beyond a period of 7 years from the date of death of an employee. It is further submitted that the competent authority Superintendent of Police, Tikamgarh be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh for grant of appointment on compassionate basis.
On the other hand, Shri Rahul Jain, Learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents submits that the Superintendent of Police, District Tikamgarh shall take action in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid submissions and agreed to learned counsel for the parties and in view of the order dated 13.12.2011, the impugned order dated 06.08.2011 is hereby quashed. The respondent No.4, Superintendent of Police, District Tikamgarh is directed to decide the application seeking compassionate appointment submitted by petitioner dated 02.06.2011 afresh in the light of order dated 13.12.2014 passed by GAD, Government of M.P. expeditiously, by speaking order preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge For the National Lok Adalat scheduled to be held on 14.02.2015 (Saturday) and to be presided over by Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Aradhe and Honb'le Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi, in addition to the regular staff of their Lordships, the following secretarial staff are directed to attend the respective Benches of the National Lok Adalat positively at 10:30 AM: THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
01. Shri Christopher Phillip, PS.
02. Ms. Loretta Raj, PA.
03. Ms. Neeti Tiwari, Steno
04. Shri Ravikant Kewat, Steno
05. Shri Ashish Kumar Lilhare, Steno
06. Shri Nishant Mohan, Steno
07. Shri Kundan Sharma, Steno
08. Shri Gautam Tekchandani, Steno Following staff posted in the Bungalow of Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Aradhe, have given guard of owner on the eve of Republic Day on 26 t h January, 2015, and therefore they be rewarded accordingly.
35 Battalion, SAF, Mandla (E) Company Camp t h G.R.P.Line, Jabalpur (M.P.)
1. HC/701 Shyam Sunder Jhariya
2. HC/501 Arun Sarsaiya
3. HC/614 Basant Kushwaha
4. HC/185 Jitendra Shukla
5. HC/378 Rajkumar Lodhi 6 Battalion, SAF, Jabalpur t h
1. P.S.O. HC/866 Annapurna Mishra
2. P.S.O. HC/591 Sukhbadan Singh FOR ADMISSION AND IA NO.8875/2013AND IA.NO.11414/13 BRINGING SUBSEQUENT EVENT AND DOCUMENT ON RECORD and IA No.11594/13 taking addl.documents on record and IA No.13878/13 for amendment in contempt petition.] FOR [TAKING FURTHER COMPLIANCE REPORT] ON IA 816/2014. FOR [TAKING FURTHER COMPLIANCE ON RECORD] ON IA 8863/2014 FOR [APP FOR IMPLEADMENTOF FINANCE CORPORATION] ON IA 14014/2014 FOR [FOR DISMISSAL OF CONC] ON IA 16472/2014