Court : Patna
Decided on : Jun-21-2004
chandramauli kr. prasad, j. 1. prayer of the petitioner in this writ application are as follows :--(1) to quash the order dated 27.2.2001 (annexure-4) of the government of jharkhand in the department of water resources and energy whereby tenughat vidyut nigam ltd. has been declared to be an undertaking of the government of jharkhand in exercise of the power under section 47 of the bihar state re-organisation act, 2000. by this order it has been further declared that in the memorandum and article of association of the tenughat vidyut nigam ltd. the expression 'bihar' and 'bihar rajya' be read as 'jharkhand' and 'jharkhand rajya' respectively;(2) to quash the order dated 24.5.2001 (annexure-5) of the government of jharkhand in its energy department whereby in exercise of power under article 49(1)(b)(d) and (e) of the articles of association and in supersession of all the earlier orders, it had constituted the board of directors of the tenughat vidyut nigam ltd;(3) to quash the order dated 31st of october, 2002 (annexure-6) of the government of india whereby it had ordered that all the assets and liabilities relating to tenughat vidyut nigam ltd. shall pass on to the state of jharkhand with effect from such taking over by the government of jharkhand under section 47 of the bihar re-organisation act 2000;(4) to quash the communication dated 2nd of september, 2003 (annexure-10) of the government of india whereby the secretary to the government of bihar in the department of energy .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Apr-06-2004
1. petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm and petitioner no. 2 is one of its partners and they have filed the present writ application for quashing condition no. 1 in tender notice no. 10/2003-2004, issued by respondent no. 3 deputy inspector general of police (provision). old secretariat, patna, published on 31.7.2003 in the english daily newspaper, namely, 'hindustan times', prescribing obtaining of sales tax registration in bihar as a condition precedent for submitting tender.2. petitioner no. 1 is a small scale industrial unit, having its unit at dhanbad in the state of jharkhand and is engaged in manufacturing various types of shoes and making supply of shoes to various government departments, including the police department. para military forces and mines etc. it has been supplying i.s.i. mark shoes to the bihar police regularly since so many years.3. on 31.7.2003, an advertisement was issued by respondent no. 3 for supply of various articles, including hunter shoe, p.t. shoe and gum boot being item nos. 1.2 and 3. respectively, of the said advertisement. a copy of the advertisement has been appended as annexure 1 to the writ application.4. in pursuance of the said tender, the petitioners submitted their tender papers on 22.8.2003. they have appointed one agent m/s. amit traders, a/32. ganga apartment, mainpura, patna, having its business in the state of bihar for effectuating supplies in terms of the tender notice. said m/s. amit traders is registered under the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Feb-04-2004
nagendra rai, j. 1. the petitioner in all the four cases is one and the same and the points involved in all the cases being also the same, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of country liquor. the matter relates to the assessment under the provisions of the bihar finance act (hereinafter referred to as the act) for the two assessment years, i.e. 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. he has challenged the order dated 25.2.2003 passed in all the four cases which has been annexed as annexure-7 to all the writ applications whereby the joint commissioner of commercial taxes (admn.), patna division, patna in exercise of power under section 46(4) of the act while remanding the matter to the assessing authority has observed that the excise duty is component of sale price and the sale price cannot be segregated into different components but discount is not permissible or allowable on the excise duty, a component of the sale price.3. the necessary facts for disposal of the aforesaid writ applications are that the petitioner has been granted licence to manufacture and sale country liquor at places buxar, ara, sasaram, mohania, bikramganj & bihia. for the relevant assessment years, he filed the returns showing total turn over and paid the taxes under the provisions of the act. the assessing authority made assessment under section 17(3) of the act by order dated 18.11.2000 in cwjc nos. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Dec-23-2004
prabhat kumar sinha, j. 1. this is a petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure ('the code', in short) for quashing the first information report including investigation in mufassil p.s. case no. 13 of 2002 instituted for the offences under sections 28 and 35 of the arms act, then pending in the court of chief judicial magistrate, motihari at east champaran.2. the facts of the case in brief are that mufassil p.s. case no. 100 of 2001 under arms act was filed by petitioner no. 1, paras roy, against one shankar rai alleging therein that while he and petitioner no. 2, rejeshwar roy, were guarding the mango crops shankar rai with three others came and indulged into criminal activities and, on protest, shankar rai fired upon him which misfired. shankar rai started fleeing away but he fell down and the petitioners caught him at which he left behind country made pistol and fled away. after investigation the police filed the final report at annexure-2, holding that the allegations were found not to be true at which the superintendent of police had ordered for filing of the final report, also directing to file charge-sheet against petitioner no. 1. on such order having been received the final report was submitted. it may be mentioned that as per the final form so submitted, no charge-sheet was submitted against petitioners no. 1 or 2. thereafter, on a supplementary petition filed by the petitioners the protest petition was treated to be complaint and, after enquiry .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : May-21-2004
i.p. singh, j.1. this is an application under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short 'the code'). it is directed against the order dated 10.4.2002 passed in cr. rev. no. 89 of 2001 by the learned sessions judge, katihar whereby and whereunder he set aside the order dated 3.8.2001 passed by the learned chief judicial magistrate, katihar in protest/complaint case no. 367/2000 dismissing the complaint petition under section 203 of the code.2. it appears that opposite party no. 2, deepak chandra das had filed a complaint case no. 452 a/1998 against the present petitioners. on receiving this complaint petition the learned chief judicial magistrate, katihar sent it to the police station for lodging an fir and for investigation. the police registered barsoi p.s.-case no. 32/1999 on the basis of this complaint petition. after completion of investigation the police found the prosecution case false and concocted and recommended and for action under sections 182 and 211 of the indian penal code against opposite party no. 2. the learned chief judicial magistrate accepted this final report submitted by the police. he, however, initiated an enquiry under section 202 of the code on the basis of a protest petition (c.a. no. 367/2000) filed against the final report submitted by the police. subsequently after holding an enquiry under section 202 of the code the learned chief judicial magistrate dismissed the complaint petition under section 203 of the code. against this .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Jul-15-2004
s.k. katriar, j. 1. heard mr. wasi akhtar for the petitioner, mr. dinu kumar, learned standing counsel (ceiling) for respondent nos. 1 to 4, and mr. syed firoz raza for respondent nos. 5 to 7. none appears on behalf of respondent no. 8 inspite of valid service of notice. these two writ petitions arise out of a common order dated 23.3.2000, passed by learned additional member, board of revenue, patna, in case no. 61/98/62/98, md. jilani v. abdul jalil, whereby the revision applications of respondent nos. 5 to 7 herein under section 32 of the bihar [consolidation of holdings] land reforms (fixation of ceiling area and acquisition of surplus land) act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') has been allowed, and the orders of the learned first authority and the appellate authority have been set aside. it arises out of two applications under section 16(3) of the act.2. the petitioner is the pre-emptor, respondent nos. 5 to 7 are the purchasers, and respondent no. 8 is the vendor. respondent no. 8 executed two documents of absolute sale on 8.11.1990, in favour of respondent nos. 5 to 7, conveying right, title and interest of different portions of plot no. 306, which are admittedly side by side. the same were registered on 30.3.1993. the petitioner filed two separate pre-emption applications claiming reconveyance of the lands in question by virtue of being an adjoining raiyat. the two applications were allowed by a common order dated 20.3.1997 (annexure-3), passed by the learned .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Jan-22-2004
chandramauli kumar prasad, j. 1. this application has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 6.4.1997 whereby the collector had published the estimated minimum value of the land.2. short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioners are the residents of village parsa in the town of patna and they possess land in that village. the collector, patna, by his order dated 6.4,1997 (annexure-1), estimated the value of the agricultural as also the homestead lands of village parsa and other villages falling within the district of patna. the valuation so-fixed was to be made effective from 10th of september, 1997. according to the order, the valuation of homestead and agricultural land of village parsa was determined at rs. 5619/- and rs. 1333/- per katha respectively. it is the stand of the petitioners that the collector has no such power to determine the value of the land.3. mr. pramod kumar singh appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that such a power vested in the state government, which would be evident from section 78(a) of the registration act, hereinafter referred to as the act and as such, the collector lacks jurisdiction to fix the minimum value of the land. he points out that the collector cannot be equated with that the state government.4. the submission of mr. singh is absolutely misconceived. section 78 of the act which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows :-- 78. fees to be fixed by state .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Dec-22-2004
r.s. garg, j. 1. heard learned counsel for the parties.2. the petitioner being aggrieved by resolution dated 15.8.2003 in which no confidence has been expressed against him is before this court. it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the panchayat samiti is constituted of 32 members, our of which 17 are elected members while 15 are nominated members. his submission is that the meeting was requisitioned by 10 members only and as the minimum requirement was 11 being one third, the requisition was bad. his further submission is that the meeting was directed to be convened on 14.8.2003 but it was adjourned for want of coram to 15.8.2003. the submission, in fact, is that the meeting was not adjourned to some other convenient date. learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the nominated members have no right to requisition a meeting of no confidence and as they have no right to vote in such a meeting, therefore, the meeting could have been called only by one third elected members and as in the present matter 10 members out of 17 have requisitioned the meeting, there was nothing wrong in it. for the coram and adjournment of the meeting it is submitted on their behalf that as the coram was not found complete on 14.8.2003, the meeting was adjourned to 15.8.2003 and nobody raised any objection against it.3. i have heard the parties.4. true it is that the panchayat samiti is constituted of 32 members but the fact remains that only 17 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Mar-04-2004
navin sinha, j.1. this application has been filed for quashing the order dated 2.1.2003 passed by the additional sessions judge, i, barh (patna) in cr. misc. no. 1 of 2002 by which he has cancelled the bail granted to petitioners herein on 29.11.2002 in pandarak ps case no. 64 of 2001 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 read with 120b of the indian penal code and section 27 of the arms act.2. it would appear from, the order dated 29.11.2002 passed in b.p. no. 640/2002 that both the petitioners were granted bail on the submission that the allegations against them as contained in the fir were general in nature and that there was no specific allegation of committing murder against them. the further assumption was that in similar circumstances accused kapil singh and navin singh were granted bail by this court in cr. misc. no. 3241 of 2002 and 32508 of 2001. it would appear from the said order dated 29.11.2002 that in the said circumstances the court below was persuaded to hold that the allegations against the present petitioners was general in nature and in similar situation two of the accused as named above were granted bail. in the circumstances, the court below proceeded to grant bail to the present two petitioners.3. subsequently on 13.12.2002 the informant submitted an application for cancellation of bail to the present petitioners. it was contended that the case of the present petitioners was not same or similar to that of the aforesaid accused i.e., kapil singh and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
Decided on : Nov-04-2004
nagendra rai, a.c.j.1. the plaintiff is the petitioner against the order dated 25.1.2002, passed by munsif-i, vaishali, in title suit no. 102 of 2000 holding that the suit was not maintainable in exercise of the power under order xiv, rule 2(2) of the code of civil procedure (for short 'the code').2. the plaintiff-petitioner filed the present suit for a declaration that the decree passed in earlier title suit no. 57 of 1971 filed by the defendant-opposite party, was not binding upon her as the decree was obtained by fraud and she should not be dispossessed on the basis of the said decree.3. it is an admitted position that the defendant-opposite party filed title suit no. 57 of 1971 in the court of the sub-ordinate judge, vaishali, for specific performance of contract on the basis of, an agreement dated 26.11.1969 executed by mother and brother of the plaintiff for sale of land. in the said suit, the plaintiff of the present suit was also made as a party and in which a decree was passed against the defendants of that case including the plaintiff. an appeal was filed in this high court being f.a. no. 27 of 1986 by the purchasers who were defendant-3rd party in the said suit. the plaintiff of this suit was also a party in the aforesaid appeal as respondent and a cross-appeal was filed on her behalf, her mother and brother. the appeal and the suit both were dismissed.4. the case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that though she was a party in the aforesaid suit, but the summons was .....Tag this Judgment!