Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.87 seconds)

Rajesh Tyagi And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru S.P. And 2 Others on 16 July, 2015

5. The submission is thoroughly misconceived. The relied upon judgment has no application to the present case and is distinguishable. In the said case, the Drug Inspector has not participated in the raid and it was made by police officials. However, here the case is different. Learned counsel for petitioners could not plead that in this case, there has been committed same illegality and infirmity by the respondent authorities as was done in the case of Manju Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Kalpana Devi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 9 May, 2013

10. The order passed by the Collector of Supaul district in appeal in fact also does not deal with this aspect. The appellate authority in fact has not considered anything and has rejected the appeal of the petitioner by one line order that in course of hearing, the petitioner did not produce any new fact. Such approach of the appellate authority cannot be approved by this Court. Both in the show-cause reply as also in the memo of appeal, the petitioner had raised the issue of presence of twelve children at the time of inspection of the Female Supervisor and had further explained that the number of children had gone up to thirty-two. The Collector, therefore, was required to look into this part of the defence of the petitioner who, as noted above, had dismissed the appeal by one line order. Such non-speaking and perfunctory order has been held to be bad by this Court in the case of Manjula Kumari & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2012(3)BLJ 159.
Patna High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - M K Jha - Full Document
1