Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-18-1995
Reported in : AIR1995Raj239; 1995(2)WLN441
orderv.s. kokje, j. 1. this is the respondent's application in an election petition for striking out pleadings and rejection of the petition for non-compliance with the provisions of section 83(1)(a) & (b) of the representation of thepeople act, 1951 (for short 'the act' hereinafter). the application has been moved under order v1 rule 16 and order vii rule 11 of the code of civil procedure read with sections 83, 86 and 87 of the act. 2. it would be necessary to state basic facts before dealing with the application. 3. the petition relates to the respondent's election to the rajasthan legislative assembly from bali constituency (no. 166). october 19, 1993 was the last date for filing nominations, october 20, 1993 was the date fixed for scrutiny of nominations, october 22, 1993 was the last date for withdrawal of candidature, november 11, 1993 was the date of polling and november 27, 1993 was the date on which the counting was to commence. the original petitioner mitha lal jain was the candidate set up by the indian national congress whereas the respondent was the candidate set up by the bhartiya janta party. the respondent was declared elected at the election and mitha lal jain, the original petitioner challenged the election by filing the election petition on january 12, 1994. 4. the election of the respondent was challenged on the grounds enumeraled in section 100(1)(b) of the act. to appreciate the controversy, it could be necessary to reproduce paragraph - 7 of the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Nov-13-1995
Reported in : (1996)IILLJ347Raj; 1996(1)WLC418
ordera.p. ravani, c.j.1. on january 10, 1983, jk synthetics ltd. declared lay off in all its fourplants at kota. almost simultaneously the company retrenched 2367 workmen engaged therein. the roots of this litigation are in the aforesaid events. the principal question which has surfaced fordeter-mination by the court is - has the industrial tribunal jurisdiction to raise and adjudicate issue regarding 'closure' of a pof a plant in absence of any point of dispute in this behalf having been referred to it. this and other related questions are required to be examined and answered by the court in these matters.2. all these matters pertain to the industrial disputes which arose between j.k. syntheticsltd., kota (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') and its workmen. at the request and withthe consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, all these matters have been heardtogether and they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.factual background3. the company was incorporated as an investment company sometime in may 1953. it started manufacturing operations at kota in rajasthan in march 1962 by commencing its nylon plant. it has three other plants viz. tyre cord plant, synthetic staple fibre plant and acrylic plant, at kota. it has a cement complex in district chittorgarh and it has also engineering facilities at calcutta, kanpur and dadri. all these matters are in relation to the four plants at kota. the total strength of workmen employed in these .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-16-1995
Reported in : 1996CriLJ2645; 1995(2)WLC262
v.s. kokje, j.1. the petitioner is an accused in a case pending before the designated court at ajmer under the terrorist and disruptive activities (prevention) act, 1987 (for short 'the t.a.d.a. act' hereinafter).2. the petitioner is being proceeded against on the allegation that he has committed offences under sections 5 of the t.a.d.a. act and under sections 7/25 and 27 of the indian arms act. as the petitioner in his petition has stated that he was being proceeded against under sections 3 and 5 of the t.a.d.a. act, the case was fixed for rehearing and it was not clarified as to whether the petitioner is being proceeded against under section 3 of the t.a.d.a. act also. however, on the basis of the certified copy of the challan produced by the petitioner, a copy of which is already on record as annexure 1 to the petition, it is clear that the petitioner is being proceeded against on the aforesaid offences only. though the petition is for quashing the entire proceedings against the petitioner, at the hearing the only point raised was that since offence under section 5 of the t.a.d.a. act would be committed only within the notified area and as the prosecution case against the petitioner is that he has committed the offences described under section 5 of the t.a.d.a. act in the district of nagour which is not a notified area, he cannot be proceeded against under the t.a.d.a. act before the designated court.3. according to the prosecution story as disclosed in the challan papers .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jul-25-1995
Reported in : AIR1996Raj97; 1996(2)WLC181
b.r. arora, j. 1. this special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24-11-1992, passed by the learned single judge by which the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellants.2. the appellants were selected for admission in the general nursing and midwifery training;. course (hereinafter referred as 'g.n.m. course') on 10-5-1989 on the basis of intermediate certificates and marksheet of intermediate science examination issued by the central board of higher education, new delhi, which were submitted by the appellant-petitioners along with their application forms. appellant no. 1 chatradhar sharma and appellant no. 3 braham prakash yadav were given admission in the g.n.m. training centre, general hospital, jalore, while appellant no. 2 virendra singh was admitted in the g.n.m. training centre, mahatma gandhi hospital, jodhpur. the course of g.n.m. training was of three years and the trainees have to clear two examiations. the appellant-petitioners passed the first examination and attended the classes for almost all the/three years and completed their training. the second examination, which is final, was to be held on 28-5-1992. the appellants were not allowed to appear in this examination as according to the respondents they gor admission on the basis of the certification of intermediate science examination issued by the central board of higher education, new delhi, which were not recognised by the jodhpur university as equivalent .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-14-1995
Reported in : AIR1995Raj211; 1995(2)WLC623
palli, j. 1. all these five writ petitions raise common questions of law and facts, these were disposed of by the authorities below by a common order and common arguments have been addressed and, thus, these cases are proposed to be disposed of by this common order.2. the facts are taken from d. b. civil writ petition no. 1014/1984: swaroop singh v. board of revenue and others.3. the case of the petitioner is that he owned land in himachal pradesh and the same was under his sole ownership and the same was acquired by the government for pong dam.4. a committee was constituted of the chief ministers of punjab, himachal pradesh and rajasthan which was headed by the central minister of irrigation and power. in the ix committee meeting it was decided that the persons whose lands had been acquired by the states of punjab and himachai pradesh for the purposes of pong dam would be sent to rajasthan and on the strength, of the certificates issued in that respect the allotments were made. the name of the petitioner figured at s. no. 11 in the list and on that basis land was allotted to him on 3-9-1966 vide annex. 1. it is said that the petitioner continues to be in possession and has deposited the desired amount. vide the order dated 26-7-1976 (annex. 2) the allotment was cancelled on the strength that the conditions mentioned in the rules of 1972 were applicable to the petitioner and under these rules he was not eligible for allotment. appeal was taken to the revenue appellate .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-25-1995
Reported in : 1995(3)WLC723; 1995(2)WLN287
v.s. kokje, j.1. the petitioner was a candidate at the selection held by rajasthan public service commission (for short 'the rpsc hereinafter), for a post of assistant professor (lecturer) in anaesthesiqlogy. the selection took place against advertisement no. 7/92 and 8/92. the number of posts for which selections were to be made were ten. the selection list was declared by the rpsc on september, 18, 1993, petitioner's name did hot find place in the selection list. but according to the information given to by the rpsc on october 1, 1993, vide annexure/2, the petitioner's name was at no. 2 in reserve list. appointments were given to ten persons in the selection list by the order dated october 19, 1993 on the basis of the main list of the selection list of candidates forwarded by the rpsc to the government on september 24, 1993. on february 11, 1994, the government informed the rpsc that one post over and above the ten posts created in the year 1992 was already vacant and therefore, name from the reserve list be sent for appointment. on march 25, 1993, another requisition was sent that four posts have become available and therefore, names of four persons be sent from the reserve list for appointments on the post. the rpsc did not send reserve list though both the requisitions were within the period of six months from the forwarding of the selection list, as required by the rajasthan medical service (collegiate branch), rules, 1962 (for short 'the rules' hereinafter). the stand .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-10-1995
Reported in : 1995(2)WLN321
r.r. yadav, j.1. the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a relief to quash the impugned order of additional commissioner commercial taxes, jaipur (respondent no. 1) dated 3.12.1983 annex. 6 to the writ petition and for restoring the order dated 24.7.1980 annex. 2 to the writ petition passed by the deputy commissioner (appeals) (respondent no. 2) on the ground, inter alia, that respondent no. 1 has no jurisdiction to set aside the orders of the commercial taxes officer, pali (respondent no. 3) dated 13.7.1979 annx. 1 to the writ petition by substituting his own order enhancing the tax liability. according to the averments made in the writ petition, the order of the commercial taxes officer. pali has attained finality subject to the modification of order dated 24.7.1980 annx. 2 to the writ petition passed by the deputy commissioner (appeals) in exercise of his appellate jurisdiction conferred upon him under rule 27 of the rules framed under the rajasthan entertainments and advertisements tax act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'act no. 24 of 1957').2. the aforesaid order dated 3.12.1983 annx. 6 to the writ petition is also challenged on the ground that respondent no. 3 in his revision application, did not challenge his own order but has challenged the order of deputy commissioner (appeals) dated 24.7.1980 annx. 2 to the writ petition. therefore, in absence of any challenge in revision, respondent no. 1 in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under rule .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-06-1995
Reported in : 1996(1)WLC607; 1995(1)WLN233
r.r. yadav, j.1. the petitioner compnay has filed the instant writ petition for quashing the impugned order dated 24 9 91 which was communicated to the petitioner company on 5.10.91 anx. 2 to the writ petition passed by respondent no. 2 district level screening committee, bhilwara refusing grant of eligibility certificate under the rajasthan sales tax deferment scheme for industries, 1987 framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section on (2b) of section 7 of the rajasthan sales tax act, 1954 (in short 'the sales tax deferment scheme, 1987').2. the factual matrix of the case for disposal of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner company of the modem worsted sinners was constructed on the land situated in khasra nos 3411, 3412 and 3413 the state govt. also accorded the sanction for change of this land from ware housing godown to industrial purposes and orders have been passed for the change in the proposed draft master plan the relevant documents in support of the aforesaid averments are filed as anx. 3, 4 and 5 to the writ petition it is also alleged that the collector bhilwara issued the orders and converted the agricultural land for industrial purposes and the same was allotted to the petitioner company under the rajasthan industrial area allotment (amended) rules, 1987 (in short 'the rules of 1987') in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances stated above it is alleged by the petitioner company that its case if fully covered under the proviso of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-07-1995
Reported in : 1996(1)WLC144; 1995(1)WLN271
n.k. jain, j.1. by this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order passed by the respondent no. 3 election officer rejecting the nomination paper of the petitioner. it has been prayed that the petitioner's nomination paper may be declared as legal one and valid.2. briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that he is the member of the respondent no. 2 jodhpur nagrik sahakari bank ltd., jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the bank) and also remained the director of the respondent bank. it is alleged that he filed two nomination paper for the post of member of board of directors on 17.11.1994 and 18.11.1994 in pursuance of the election programme issued by notification dt. 10.11.1994 published in rajasthan patrika dt. 11.10.1994 (anx.1). it is also alleged that his nomination paper was rejected in the scrutiny and the order of rejection was also not supplied. on enquiry he was informed that since he stands as a guarantor for m/s. s.v. construction and certain dues are still lying with the bank. being aggrieved with the rejection of his nomination paper, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.3. this writ petition has been filed on 21.11.1994. this court on 25.11.1994 while issuing notice ordered that the petitioner would be permitted to contest and participate in the election subject to the result of the writ petition. the result be not declared till further orders.4. in pursuance of the notice, the respondent no. 1 has filed reply on .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-31-1995
Reported in : 1995(1)WLN563
m.p. singh, j.1. the petitioner is seeking admission in engineering degree course on the basis of pre-engineering test, 1994 through this writ petition.the coordinator pre-engineering test, 199 mohan lal sukhadia university, udalpur, (respondent no. 2) issued a notification which was published in the rajasthan patrika dated 6th august, 1994, for admission in engineering degree course. it was a combined test for as many as 35 institutes in rajasthan. the name of birla institute of technology & science, pilani, rajasthan, (respondent no. 4) was also included in the said list.2. the petitioner appeared in the test. he secured 672 marks out of 900. the merit list was notified. in general category, merit position no. 1 to 762 and in the reserve list merit position nos. 763 to 912 were notified. the petitioner's merit position was 1006. the candidates whose names appeared in the merit list upto 762 were called for interview on different dates and given admissions. there was no question of considering the petitioner for admission, as his position in the merit list was 1006. he has been rightly denied admission.3. the birla institute of technology & science had already issued its own notification for admission. the last date for making applications was 30th june, 1994. all the admissions have been finalised by the beginning of august, 1994. the petitioner was not entitled to get admission in this institute under any circumstance.4. apart from it in the merit list he stood at serial .....Tag this Judgment!