Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Mar-06-2009
Reported in : RLW2009(1)Raj735
govind mathur, j.1. while accepting s.b. civil writ petition no. 3612/2003-mahi ram bishnoi v. state of rajasthan & others on 01st august, 2006, this court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner mahi ram as para teacher from the date of his selection with the gram panchayat, meethariya. alleging noncompliance of theorder aforesaid, this application to initiate contempt proceedings as per provisions of contempt of courts act, 1971 was filed on 31st january, 2007 and a rule was issued by this court on 16th march, 2007 to shri hira lal meena, district education officer (elementary), bikaner and shri surendra singh bhati, block elementary education officer, panchayat samiti, kolayat, bikaner; to show cause as to why proceedings under contempt of courts act, 1971 be not initiated against them.2. an application is now preferred by the petitioner seeking execution of the writ issued under judgment dated 01st august, 2006. it is stated that despite service of notices issued by this court, shri hira lal meena has not filed any reply to the application for initiating proceedings under contempt of courts act. it is further stated that shri hira lal, as a matter of fact, is not at all in a position to make compliance of the directions given by this court as a consequence of his transfer to some other place. it is also stated that shri teja singh dhaliwal, who was posted vice aforesaid hira lal meena is also no more holding the post concerned because of his transfer and now .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : May-15-2009
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1680
prem shankar asopa, j.1. since the common question of facts and law are involved relating to renew the contract of the petitloner(s) for vacant post of gnm/nurse grade ii considering the fact that they are experience persons and are having more marks and percentage than the selected candidates. all the petitioner(s) have also claimed priority in the select list on the ground that adhoc appointee cannot be substituted by another adhoc fresh appointee, therefore, all the petitions have been heard together and are being decided together.2. briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that on 04.05.2007 under the national rural health mission (nrhm) a notification inviting application for appointment of 2500 gnm in sub health centres in 24 districts was issued and the appointments were to be made at district level and the candidates of the.respective districts were to be given preference. then again second advertisement was issued on 08.08.2007 for 6172 gnm post on the same terms and conditions. on 25.08.2007, an amended notification was issued wherein it was stated that the merit list will be prepared at the state level. then again on 21.01.2008, another amended notification was issued wherein it was stated that the merit list will be prepared at the district level.3. the said order of 21.01.2008 of district level selection was challenged by some of candidates, out of which one was shri dema ram choudhary whose the writ petition was registered as s.b.c.w. no. 1120/2008 .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-08-2009
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2459
m.n. bhandari, j.1. the matter was heard finally with the consent of the parties.2. the petitioner was elected as 'sarpanch' of gram panchayat, lisadia of panchayat samiti sri madhopur, district sikar. he was served with the charge sheet, to take action as per section 38 of the rajasthan panchayati raj act, 1994 (for short 'the act of 1994'). in the charge sheet, it was alleged that he raised construction of panchayat building in a land recorded as 'gair mumkin naid', thus proper place was not selected and it may cause damage to the record and building. respondents conducted enquiry as per the rule 22 of rajasthan panchayati raj rules, 1996 (for short 'the rules of 1996'). the enquiry officer thereafter submitted enquiry report vides annex. 11 to the writ petition dated 22.04.2008, holding charges as not proved. after recording said finding in the enquiry, it seems that matter travelled to other government authorities and in that respect, firstly order was passed on 20th october 2008 vide annex. 15. in the aforesaid order, it has been recorded that charge against the petitioner is found to be proved therefore, before passing any order, petitioner should be given opportunity of hearing in view of the rule 22(7) of the rules of 1996. the respondent divisional commissioner thereafter passed the impugned order dated 09.02.2009 (annex. 16) after calling for the report from collector. vide impugned order, petitioner is declared to be disqualified to hold the post of 'sarpanch' and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-16-2009
Reported in : RLW2010(1)Raj617
mahesh chandra sharma, j.1. the accused appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated june 15, 2004 of additional sessions judge (fast track) hindauncity distt. karauli whereby the accused appellants were convicted under sections 498a and 304b ipc to suffer 2 years ri with fine of rs. 2000/- each in default to suffer three months ri and 10 years ri. sentence of accused appellant bisso devi was suspended by the order of this court dated august 2, 2005 and since then she is on bail. sentence of accused appellant mohar singh, who was aged about 75 years, was suspended by the order of this court dated october 11, 2006 and since then he is on bail. accused appellant amrit lal is in judicial custody and he has remained in judicial custody for more than 6 years and 3 months and 2 days as of today.2. brief facts of the case are that an fir was lodged by deceased's father shriman on december 29, 2002 at police station shrimahavirji. on the basis of the aforesaid fir the police registered case for the offences under sections 147, 498a and 304b ipc. in the fir it was stated that mayadevi was married to accused appellant amrit lal on may 5, 1996. the informant stated that after marriage whenever mayadevi reached to his village she complained that the persons in the in-laws family used to beat her for not bringing sufficient dowry. the informant stated that any how he sent his daughter to in-laws house. he reported this matter to panchayat of the village also. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-06-2009
Reported in : AIR2009Raj132; RLW2009(3)Raj2010
vineet kothari, j.1. this first appeal has been filed by the plaintiff dhara singh against the judgment and decree of the learned trial court dismissing his suit for specific performance on 16.12.2000.2. the plaintiff had filed a civil suit no. 30/1991 against the three defendant - brothers fateh singh, chhabek singh and hardeep singh in respect of agreement to sell 9 bighas of land agreements being dated 9.2.1985 and 15.12.1985 for sale of total 9 bighas of land situated at 16 gb tehsil sri vijaynagar, dist. sri ganganagar for consideration of rs. 74,250/- mentioned in the agreement dtd. 9.2.1985 against which the plaintiff paid a sum of rs. 25,000/- at the time of agreement and some amount later and a total sum of rs. 66,450/- was paid to the defendants.3. the suit was contested by the defendants except one of the brothers chhabek singh who filed written statement in favour of the plaintiff.4. that the trial court has framed as many as 12 issues and while deciding all other issues in favour of the plaintiff including the fact that the plaintiff was put in physical possession at the time of said agreement dtd. 9.2.1985 in respect of said 9 bighas of land and issues relating to readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, existence of agreement etc. issues no. 7 and 8 were however decided against the plaintiff and therefore, the suit was ultimately dismissed by the learned trial court and the specific 'performance was refused, however the plaintiff was awarded double the sum .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jun-05-2009
Reported in : RLW2009(3)Raj2418
mahesh bhagwati, j.1. the state election commission, rajasthan is found to have decided to fill in the vacancy of the president of municipal council kishangarh and beawar, the chairman of municipal board, kekri, mangrol, gangapur (bhilwara), rawatbhata, ramgarh shekhawati, bhawani mandi, merta city, the vice-chairman of municipal board, pratapgarh and the deputy mayor of municipal corporation, jaipur, by holding bye-election on 8th (eight) june, 2009, monday. notice period of seven days was given. an action in accordance with the provisions of rule 95 read with rule 78 to 90, of rajasthan municipalities (election) rules, 1994 whichever is applicable, has been directed to be taken. it is also directed to be ensured that there was no stay order from the courts against holding the bye elections. the election of vacancies of chair persons of municipal council kishangarh, municipal board kekri, mangrol, gangapur (bhilwara), rawatbhata, ramgarh shekhawati, merta city has been notified to be held subject to the out come of decision of the court.2. the notification seems to have been issued vide no. f.4 (7)(1) me/sec/1521 jaipur dated 28.05.2009.3. by way of this instant petition, the petitioner babulal losania presently functioning as acting chairman of municipal board, ramgarh shekhawati district sikar (rajasthan) has sought the following reliefs:(i) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby the respondents may be directed to withdraw the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Feb-26-2009
Reported in : AIR2009Raj150
ordervineet kothari, j.1. this revision petition has been filed by the defendant anjuman a burhani (shiya daudi bohra jamaet) against the plaintiff daudi bohra jamaet, being aggrieved by the order of the learned trial court dated 12-4-2007 whereby the learned trial court rejected the application under order 7, rule 11, c.p.c. filed by the defendant-petitioner seeking dismissal of the suit at threshold as barred by law.2. the defendant--petitioner contended before the court below that section 85 of the wakf act, 1995 barred the present suit of injunction filed by the plaintiff also and, therefore, the learned court below has erred in rejecting the application under order 7, rule 11, c.p.c. and being aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-defendant.3. the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that section 85 of the wakf act, 1995 clearly bars jurisdiction of civil court in respect of any dispute, question or other matter relating to any wakf, wakf property or other matter which is required by or under this act to be determined by a tribunal constituted under section 83 of the said act and scope of jurisdiction of the tribunal is not limited to the disputes as defined in sections 6 and 7 of the said act and, therefore, even the injunction suit filed by the plaintiff which was essentially based on dispute between the parties as to the extent of property held by either of the parties also deserves to be decided by wakf .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Apr-30-2009
Reported in : 2009(2)WLN479
mohammad rafiq, j.1. this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the board of revenue dt. 20.06.2000 by which judgment of the learned revenue appellate authority dt. 23.04.1992 was set-aside and that of sub divisional magistrate bayana dt. 09.07.1990 was restored. petitioner has also challenged the judgment of s.d.m. dated 09.07.1990.2. the factual matrix of the case is that tehsildar roopwas initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 under section 175 of the rajasthan tenancy act, 1955 (for short, 'act of 1955') in the court of learned additional city magistrate, bayana in the year 1976. learned acm rejected the application vide order dt. 05.02.1977. when petitioner came to know about the same on enquiry he learnt that in the revenue record, he was shown as 'shikmi kashtkar' in respect of land bearing khasra no. 34 measuring 4 bighas 4 biswas situated at village mamtoli, police station roopwas, tehsil and district bharatpur whereas petitioner and his predecessor i.e. his father (ghoori) was khatedar of the said land and therefore petitioner filed a suit for declaration of his right and perpetual injunction against respondent no. 2 on the premise that the land in dispute was in possession of petitioner's father ghoori and that he was cultivating the same as a khatedar ever since 2017 and after his death in 2023, land was mutated in favour of the petitioner vide mutation dt. 08.10.1971 and since then, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Sep-14-2009
Reported in : 2010CriLJ629
mahesh chandra sharma, j.1. the accused appellant yogesh filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated july 29, 2006 of addl. sessions judge, no. l bundi in sessions case no. 6 of 2006 whereby the accused appellant was convicted for the offence under section 366 ipc to undergo 10 years ri with fine of rs. 500, in default of fine to undergo additional imprisonment of three months, under section 366 a to undergo 10 years ri and fine of rs. 500, in default of payment of , fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of three months, under section 368 ipc to undergo ten years ri and fine of rs. 500 in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of 3 months, under section 372 ipc, to undergo 10 years ri and fine of rs. 500, in default of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of three months and under section 376 ipc to undergo 10 years ri and fine of rs. 500, in default to further undergo additional imprisonment of three months and under section 3 of the immoral traffic (prevention ) act, 1956 to undergo one year ri with fine of rs. 500, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment of three months under section 6 of the immoral traffic (prevention ) act, 1956 to undergo three years ri with a fine of rs. 500 and in event of default of payment of fine to undergo additional imprisonment of three months under section 9 of immoral traffic ( prevention ) act, 1956 to undergo seven years ri with fine of rs. 500, .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-27-2009
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1474
ashok parihar, j.1. suit for eviction was filed by the landlord against the defendant-appellant on the ground of default and nan-user, subsequently, with the change of ownership of the premises in dispute, the purchaser was substituted as plaintiffs in the suit who are present plaintiff-respondents. the suit was allowed on the ground of default by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.2007. the above judgment and decree passed by the trial court has further been affirmed by the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 27.8,2008. hence, the present appeal by the defendant-appellant.2. mr. mehta, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that admittedly an advance security deposit of rs. 1 lac had been received by the original landlord at the time of executing the rent deed. since advance paid by the defendaht-appellant against security for rent was already deposited with the landlord, the arrears of rent could have been adjusted by the landlord and question of default wouldever arise in such case. while relying on the judgment of the supreme court in the case of modem hotel, gudur v. k. radhakrishnaiah and ors. : 2scr725 , shri mehta submitted that the defendant-appellant had already made a prayer before the trial court at the time of determination of provisional rent that the advance paid to the landlord could be adjusted against the arrears of rent. however, question of adjustment of amount was not decided by the .....Tag this Judgment!