Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.81 seconds)

Shital Rai And Ors. vs The State Of Bihar Through ... on 7 March, 1990

28. A Division Bench of this Court has taken a contrary view of the matter in Bhola Chaudhary v. The State of Bihar, 1988 PLJR 692. That case has occasioned reference of these applications to the Full Bench. In this case the prayer was for issuance of a writ of quo warranto or any appropriate direction for removing the Mukhia of Dhobani Ramauli Gram Panchayat. That Gram Pan-chayat, which had been established in June, 1960, initially consisted of seven villages. In the election held in June, 1978 respondent No. 3 of that petition has been elected Mukhia. In course of time he was also elected pramukh of the concerned Panchayat Samiti. In October, 1985, the Government issued a notification altering the territorial area and local limits of the said Gram Panchayat by taking out five villages out of the seven original villages which constituted the Gram Panchayat. Dhobani-Ramauli Gram Panchayat thereafter consisted of only two vil-lages-Dhobani and Ramauli. Another notification was issued notifying the setting up of Sisai Gram Panchayat consisting of five villages which were originally part of Dhobani-Ramauli Gram Panchayat. Consequent upon the notification issued in terms of Section 3(3) of Panchayat Raj Act, two Gram Panchayats came into existence -- one was Dhobani-Ramauli Gram Panchayat and other was Sisai Gram Panchayat. Consequent upon the notifications the erstwhile Mukhia ceased to be member of Dhobani Ramauli Gram Panchayat as his village formed part of Sasai Gram Panchayat but he continued to function as Mukhia of Dhobani Ramauli Gram Panchayat. His functioning as such was challenged by the application for issuance of a writ of quo warranto and for a direction for removal of the Mukhia. The question which fell for consideration in that application was whether Dhobani Ramauli Gram Panchayat was a newly established Gram Panchayat or whether it was an old Gram Panchayat. If it, was held to be a newly established Gram Panchayat, the erstwhile Mukhia -- the respondent of that application, would have no jurisdiction to function as Mukhia of Dhobani Ramauli Gram Panchayat and the Collector would have to nominate a Mukhia in terms of proviso to Section 10. In that case at paragraph 7 Ram Nandan Prasad, J. with S. Ali Ahmad J. observed that there was no doubt that if the altered Dhobani Ramaui Gram Panchayat had to be regarded as a newly established Gram Panchayat the contention of the petitioner of the application had to be upheld, The contention that it was newly established Gram Panchayat was rejected. The reasons for holding that it was not a newly established Gram Panchayat were as follows (at page 695; 1988 PLJR) :--
Patna High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Jaleshwar Prasad Singh vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 5 July, 2013

10. Since the order dated 18.11.2002 has been passed after the superannuation of the petitioner from service w.e.f. 31.10.2002, in view of the decision rendered in "Bindeswari Chaudhary Vs. the State of Bihar", reported in 1999 BBCJ (V) 89 and in "Bholan Choudhary Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.", reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 186, the impugned order dated 18.11.2002 is hereby quashed, however, it is open to the respondents to resort to the provisions contained in Jharkhand Pension Rules and initiate a proceeding against the petitioner. It is further clarified that in view of the pendency of the writ petition, the period of four years as prescribed under Rule 43 (b) of the Jharkhand Pensions Rules would not come in the way of the respondents, if they are so adviced, to initiate a fresh proceeding against the petitioner.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Chandrashekhar - Full Document
1