IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2018 (S)
PETITIONER : MRS. ASHA PATEL
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
DECLARATION
(Under Rule 25 of Chapter X)
The copies
as required by Rule 25 of Chapter X
of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Rules, 2008, have served upon Clerk of office of the Assistant Solicitor
General for India at PM on 2018 in Jabalpur.
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATE : ADVOCATE FOR
PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2018 (S)
PETITIONER : MRS. ASHA PATEL
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
I N D E X
|
S. No.
|
Description of documents
|
Annexure
|
Pages
|
|
1.
|
DECLARATION (Under Rule 25 of
Chapter X)
|
|
1
|
|
2.
|
Index
|
|
2 & 3
|
|
3.
|
Chronology
of Events
|
|
4 & 6
|
|
4.
|
Memo
of Writ petition with affidavit
|
|
7 TO 17
|
|
5.
|
List
of documents.
|
|
18
|
|
6.
|
Copy of Medical Certificate dated
07.06.2005
|
P-1
|
19
|
|
7.
|
Copy of the application for grant
of maternity leave dated 14.10.2005
|
P-2
|
20
|
|
8.
|
Copy of Birth Certificate dated
30.11.2005 of Kumari Palak
|
P-3
|
21
|
|
9.
|
Copy of the Birth Register of
Village – Mahaner, Tahsil – Dhimarkheda, District- Katni (Madhya Pradesh)
|
P-4
|
22
|
|
10.
|
Copy of the application dated
26/28/29.09.2015 submitted by petitioner
|
P-5
|
23 & 24
|
|
11.
|
Copy of the application dated 29.12.2015
under the provisions of Section 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 submitted
by petitioner
|
P-6
|
25 & 26
|
|
12.
|
Copy of the reminder application dated
24.02.2016 submitted by petitioner
|
P-7
|
27
|
|
13.
|
Copy of the application dated
18.07.2017 submitted by petitioner
|
P-8
|
28
|
|
14.
|
Copy of the application dated 29.08.2017 submitted by petitioner
|
P-9
|
29
|
|
15.
|
Copy of the Jansunvai receipt
dated 29.08.2017
|
P-10
|
30
|
|
16.
|
Copy of the application dated
16.11.2017 submitted by petitioner
|
P-11
|
31 TO 33
|
|
17.
|
Copy of the postal acknowledgement
as downloaded from internet
|
P-12
|
34
|
|
18.
|
Copy of relevant extract of Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965
|
P-13
|
35 TO 38
|
|
19.
|
VAKALATNAMA
|
|
39
|
|
20.
|
COURT
FEE
|
|
40
|
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED :
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2018 (S)
PETITIONER : MRS. ASHA PATEL
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
|
S.No
|
Date
|
Events
|
|
1.
|
06.06.1993
|
Petitioner is a legally wedded wife of one Mr. Jagat
Lal Patel, S/o Mr. Shiv Lal Patel, the said marriage was duly solemnized on
06.06.1993 in accordance with Hindu customs and rites. Out of this wedlock
petitioner with her husband, was blessed with a son, by the grace of God. Out
of some matrimonial differences petitioner is residing with her parents at
the address mentioned in the array of cause title. It is humbly submitted the
said marriage is still in force and it has not been dissolved by the any
competent Court of Law by a Decree of Divorce.
|
|
2.
|
07.06.2005
|
Petitioner’s
husband married to one Ms. Madhulata Kushwaha D/o Mr. Ram Charan Kushwaha who
is posted as Assistant Teacher, Grade III, at Government Girls School,
Umariyapan, District- Katni (Madhya Pradesh) in violation Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,
1965. For getting leave the said Ms. Madhulata Kushwaha obtained a Medical
Certificate from Dr. Chitra Jain of Vijaya Memorial Clinic, Garha Phatak,
Jabalpur.
|
|
3.
|
14.10.2005
|
The said Ms. Madhulata Kushwaha had submitted an application for grant
of maternity leave on 14.10.2005 from 18.10.2005 on the ground that she is
being conceived.
|
|
4.
|
30.11.2005
|
On 29.11.2005 Ms. Madhulata Kushwaha and petitioner’s husband Mr. Jagat
Lal Patel were blessed with baby girl “Kumari Palak” as evident from birth
certificate.
|
|
5.
|
29.11.2005
|
There is an entry in the Birth
Register of Village – Mahaner, Tahsil – Dhimarkheda, District- Katni (Madhya Pradesh) as
to petitioner’s husband Mr. Jagat Lal Patel and Ms. Madhulata
Kushwaha were blessed with baby girl on 29.11.2005.
|
|
6.
|
26/28/29.09.2015
|
Petitioner submitted an application to the respondent
No. 4 for initiating departmental inquiry as to performing of bigamous
marriage thereby violating Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1965.
|
|
7.
|
29.12.2015
|
Petitioner made an application on
29.12.2015 under the provisions of Section 6 (1) of the Right to Information
Act, 2005 thereby sought relief as to what action was taken over his
application (Supra).
|
|
8.
|
24.02.2016
|
Petitioner submitted a reminder application on 24.02.2016
to the
respondent No. 4 for initiating departmental inquiry as to performing of bigamous
marriage thereby violating Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1965.
|
|
9.
|
18.07.2017
|
Petitioner submitted another application on 18.07.2017
to the
respondent No. 4 for initiating departmental inquiry as to performing of
bigamous marriage thereby violating Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1965.
|
|
10.
|
29.08.2017
|
Petitioner submitted another application on 29.08.2017
to the
respondent No. 3 during Jansunvai
for initiating departmental inquiry as to performing of bigamous marriage
thereby violating Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.
|
|
11.
|
29.08.2017
|
Copy of the Jansunvai receipt
dated 29.08.2017
|
|
12.
|
16.11.2017
|
Petitioner further submitted another application on 16.11.2017
to the
respondent No. 1 for initiating departmental inquiry as to performing of
bigamous marriage thereby violating Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1965.
|
|
13.
|
|
Petitioner
preferred a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
against action on the part of the respondent authorities in not taking any
action in relation to the complaint lodged by the petitioner on the
allegation of second marriage performed by her husband, before the Hon’ble
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur.
|
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED : ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
Format No. 7
(Chapter X, Rule
23)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2018 (S)
PETITIONER : MRS.
ASHA PATEL, Aged about 40
years, W/o Mr. Jagat Lal Patel, D/o Mr. Ram Milan Patel, Occupation
– Housewife, R/o Ward No. 12, Paliwal Colony, Khitaula, Tahsil Sihora, District
– Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) Relaince : 9300721401.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Madhya Pradesh,
Through the Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayat & Rural
Development Department, Minstry, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh).
2. Director, Panchayat & Rural
Development Directorate, Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal, (Madhya Pradesh), Phone:
0755-255 7727, Email: dirpanchayat@mp.gov.in
3. Collector & District
Magistrate, Collectorate Katni, (Madhya Pradesh)
Email : dmkatni@nic.in, Phone
: 07622-220009, Fax : 07622-222266
4. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat,
Dhimarkheda, Katni, (Madhya Pradesh).
(Writ Petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India).
1. Particulars of the
Cause/ Order against which the petition is submitted:
(1) Date of
Order / Notification/ Circular / Policy/ Decision Etc. : NIL
(2)
Passed in (Case Or File Number) : NIL
(3)
Passed by (Name and Designation of the
Court, Authority, Tribunal Etc.) : NIL
(4)
Subject – matter in brief: From a perusal of Rule 3 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965
it is clear that generally, every Government servant should at all times do
nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. Rule 22 of the Rules does
not permit bigamous marriage without first obtaining the permission of the
Government even in case where subsequent marriage is permissible under personal
law applicable to the employee. Rule 22A provides that without prejudice to the
generality of the concept of misconduct, any act or omission in breach of
directions or prohibition enacted in the rules shall amount to a misconduct
punishable under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1966 and the relevant provision of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,
1965. The relevant Rule is Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,
1965. The Rule deals with Bigamous marriages which reads as under:--
"Bigamous
marriages.-- (1) No Government servant who has a wife living shall contract
another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government,
notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal
law for the time being applicable to him.
(2) No
female Government servant shall marry any person who has a wife living without
first obtaining the permission of the Government.
22-A.
General Concept of misconduct.-- Without prejudice to the generality of the
concept of misconduct any act or omission in breach of directions or
prohibition enacted in these rules shall amount to misconduct punishable under
the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966."
By preferring this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this
Hon’ble High Court by calling in question the legality, validity, propriety and
correctness of the in-action on the part of the respondent authorities in not taking
any action in relation to the complaint lodged by the petitioner on the
allegation of second marriage performed by her husband. From pillar to post
petitioner, being a lady, knocked every door for the redressal of her
grievances but at the end petitioner surrenders himself before this Hon’ble
High Court to seek justice as litigation is the last resort when governments
completely disregard the rule of law. Whether petitioner is entitled to get the
relief as claimed in her complaint, from the respondent authority ? is the question involved in this writ
petition.
2. A declaration that
no proceeding on the same subject matter has been previously instituted in any
Court, Authority or Tribunal, if instituted, the Status or result thereof, along
with copy of the Order:
Petitioner declares that no proceeding
on the same subject matter has been previously instituted in any Court,
Authority or Tribunal.
3. Details of the
remedied exhausted :
The petitioner declares that he has
availed all statutory and other remedies.
4. Delay, if any, in
filing the petition and explanation therefor
From pillar to post petitioner, being a
lady, knocked every door for the redressal of her grievances but at the end
petitioner surrenders himself before this Hon’ble High Court to seek justice as
litigation is the last resort when governments completely disregard the rule of
law.
5.
Facts of the Case :
1.
Petitioner is a peace loving national
of India and entitled for the all the benefit and fundamental rights as
enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India. Respondents are the
instrumentality of state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution
of India and therefore amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High
Court.
2. Petitioner is a legally wedded wife of
one Mr. Jagat Lal Patel, S/o Mr. Shiv Lal Patel, the said marriage was duly solemnized
on 06.06.1993 in accordance with Hindu customs and rites. Out of this wedlock
petitioner with her husband, was blessed with a son, by the grace of God. Out
of some matrimonial differences petitioner is residing with her parents at the address
mentioned in the array of cause title. It is humbly submitted the said marriage
is still in force and it has not been dissolved by the any competent Court of
Law by a Decree of Divorce.
3. Petitioner’s husband Mr. Jagat Lal
Patel appointed to the post of “Shiksha
Karmi Grade III”, in the year 1998. Presently he is posted as “Janshikshak” at Sankul Kendra - Dhimarkheda,
Janpad Panchayat – Dhimarkheda, District- Katni (Madhya Pradesh).
4. Petitioner’s husband married to one
Ms. Madhulata Kushwaha D/o Mr. Ram Charan Kushwaha who is posted as Assistant
Teacher, Grade III, at Government Girls School, Umariyapan, District- Katni
(Madhya Pradesh) in violation Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1965. For getting leave the said Ms. Madhulata Kushwaha
obtained a Medical Certificate from Dr. Chitra Jain of Vijaya Memorial Clinic,
Garha Phatak, Jabalpur. Copy of Medical Certificate dated 07.06.2005 is filed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-1.
The said Ms. Madhulata Kushwaha had submitted an application for grant of maternity
leave on 14.10.2005 from 18.10.2005 on the ground that she is being conceived.
Copy of the application for grant of maternity leave dated 14.10.2005 is filed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-2.
On 29.11.2005 Ms. Madhulata Kushwaha and petitioner’s husband Mr. Jagat Lal
Patel were blessed with baby girl “Kumari Palak” as evident from birth
certificate. Copy of Birth Certificate dated 30.11.2005 of Kumari Palak is
filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-3. There is an entry in the Birth Register of Village – Mahaner,
Tahsil – Dhimarkheda, District- Katni
(Madhya Pradesh) as to petitioner’s husband Mr. Jagat Lal Patel and Ms. Madhulata
Kushwaha were blessed with baby girl on 29.11.2005. Copy of the Birth Register
of Village – Mahaner, Tahsil – Dhimarkheda, District- Katni (Madhya Pradesh) is filed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-4.
5. Petitioner submitted an application to
the respondent No. 4 for initiating departmental inquiry as to performing of bigamous
marriage thereby violating Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,
1965. Copy of the application dated 26/28/29.09.2015
submitted by petitioner is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-5. Petitioner made an application on 29.12.2015
under the provisions of Section 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
thereby sought relief as to what action was taken over his application (Supra).
Copy of the application dated 29.12.2015
under the provisions of Section 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 submitted
by petitioner is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-6. Petitioner submitted a reminder
application on 24.02.2016 to the respondent
No. 4 for initiating departmental inquiry as to performing of bigamous marriage
thereby violating Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Copy of the reminder application dated 24.02.2016 submitted by
petitioner is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-7. Petitioner
submitted another application on 18.07.2017 to the respondent No. 4 for initiating
departmental inquiry as to performing of bigamous marriage thereby violating
Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Copy of the application dated 18.07.2017 submitted by
petitioner is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-8. Petitioner
submitted another application on 29.08.2017 to the respondent No. 3 during Jansunvai for initiating departmental
inquiry as to performing of bigamous marriage thereby violating Rule 22 of the
M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965.
Copy of the application dated
29.08.2017 submitted by petitioner is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-9. Copy of the
Jansunvai receipt dated 29.08.2017 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-10. Petitioner further submitted another
application on 16.11.2017 to the respondent
No. 1 for initiating departmental inquiry as to performing of bigamous marriage
thereby violating Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. Copy of the application dated 16.11.2017 submitted by
petitioner is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-11. Copy of the postal acknowledgement as downloaded from internet is
filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-12. Copy of relevant extract of Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,
1965 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-13. Hence this petition on following
grounds amongst the others
6. Grounds urged :
A. From a perusal of Rule 3 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1965
it is clear that generally, every Government servant should at all times do
nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. Rule 22 of the Rules does
not permit bigamous marriage without first obtaining the permission of the
Government even in case where subsequent marriage is permissible under personal
law applicable to the employee. Rule 22A provides that without prejudice to the
generality of the concept of misconduct, any act or omission in breach of
directions or prohibition enacted in the rules shall amount to a misconduct
punishable under the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1966 and the relevant provision of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,
1965. The relevant Rule is Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,
1965. The Rule deals with Bigamous marriages which reads as under:--
"Bigamous
marriages.-- (1) No Government servant who has a wife living shall contract
another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government,
notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal
law for the time being applicable to him.
(2) No
female Government servant shall marry any person who has a wife living without
first obtaining the permission of the Government.
22-A.
General Concept of misconduct.-- Without prejudice to the generality of the
concept of misconduct any act or omission in breach of directions or
prohibition enacted in these rules shall amount to misconduct punishable under
the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966."
B.
For that,
Petitioner is a legally wedded wife of one Mr. Jagat Lal Patel, S/o Mr. Shiv
Lal Patel, the said marriage was duly solemnized on 06.06.1993 in accordance
with Hindu customs and rites. Out of this wedlock petitioner with her husband,
was blessed with a son, by the grace of God. Out of some matrimonial
differences petitioner is residing with her parents at the address mentioned in
the array of cause title. It is humbly submitted the said marriage is still in
force and it has not been dissolved by the any competent Court of Law by a
Decree of Divorce.
C.
For that,
Petitioner’s husband Mr. Jagat Lal Patel appointed to the post of “Shiksha Karmi Grade III”, in the year
1998. Presently he is posted as “Janshikshak”
at Sankul Kendra - Dhimarkheda, Janpad Panchayat – Dhimarkheda, District- Katni
(Madhya Pradesh). Petitioner’s husband
married to one Ms. Madhulata Kushwaha D/o Mr. Ram Charan Kushwaha who is posted
as Assistant Teacher, Grade III, at Government Girls School, Umariyapan,
District- Katni (Madhya Pradesh) in violation Rule 22 of the
M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965. For getting leave the said Ms.
Madhulata Kushwaha obtained a Medical Certificate from Dr. Chitra Jain of
Vijaya Memorial Clinic, Garha Phatak, Jabalpur. The said Ms. Madhulata Kushwaha
had submitted an application for grant of maternity leave on 14.10.2005 from
18.10.2005 on the ground that she is being conceived. On 29.11.2005 Ms.
Madhulata Kushwaha and petitioner’s husband Mr. Jagat Lal Patel were blessed
with baby girl “Kumari Palak” as evident from birth certificate. There is an
entry in the Birth Register of Village – Mahaner, Tahsil – Dhimarkheda, District- Katni (Madhya Pradesh) as to
petitioner’s
husband Mr. Jagat Lal Patel and Ms. Madhulata Kushwaha were blessed with baby
girl on 29.11.2005.
D.For that, A public
servant is expected to perform his duty fairly in order to achieve the purpose
which is intended to be achieved by him on the entrustment of the duty upon
him. Duty is like a debt. It must be discharged without delay or demur and
without bias. Bias is like a drop of poison in a cup of pure milk. It is enough
to ruin it and vitiate the whole action.
Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra
Pradesh V/s T. Suryachandra Rao reported in (2005) 6 SCC 149 is pertinent as to
meaning of the word fraud in public Law and abuse of power. Relevant portion
reads thus :
11.
……………………………………………………But "fraud" in public law is not the same as
"fraud" in private law. Nor can the ingredients, which establish
"fraud" in commercial transaction, be of assistance in determining
fraud in Administrative Law. It has been aptly observed by Lord Bridge in
Khawaja v. Secretary of State for Home Deptt. (1983) 1 All ER 765, that it is
dangerous to introduce maxims of common law as to effect of fraud while
determining fraud in relation of statutory law. "Fraud" in relation
to statute must be a colourable transaction to evade the provisions of a
statute.
"If a
statute has been passed for some one particular purpose, a court of law will
not countenance any attempt which may be made to extend the operation of the
Act to something else which is quite foreign to its object and beyond its
scope. Present day concept of fraud on statute has veered round abuse of power
or mala fide exercise of power. It may arise due to overstepping the limits of
power or defeating the provision of statute by adopting subterfuge or the power
may be exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The colour of
fraud in public law or administration law, as it is developing, is assuming
different shades. It arises from a deception committed by disclosure of
incorrect facts knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of power and
procure an order from an authority or tribunal. It must result in exercise of
jurisdiction which otherwise would not have been exercised. The
misrepresentation must be in relation to the conditions provided in a section
on existence or non-existence of which the power can be exercised. But
non-disclosure of a fact not required by a statute to be disclosed may not
amount to fraud. Even in commercial transactions non-disclosure of every fact
does not vitiate the agreement. "In a contract every person must look for
himself and ensures that he acquires the information necessary to avoid bad
bargain. In public law the duty is not to deceive. (See
Shrisht Dhawan (Smt.) v. M/s. Shaw Brothers, (1992 (1) SCC 534).
12. In that
case it was observed as follows:
"Fraud
and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system
of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael levi
likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to,
'wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares'". It has been
defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International
Dictionary fraud in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or
concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over
another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to
another. In Black's Legal Dictionary, fraud is defined as an intentional
perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part
with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false
representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or
misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been
disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall
act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been
defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust
advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. According to Halsbury's Laws of
England, a representation is deemed to have been false, and therefore a
misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in
fact.---------------------------------------"
7. Relief Prayed for :
(a)
That the Hon’ble High court shall be
pleased to call for the entire original record of lis for its kind perusal.
(b)
That the Hon’ble High Court shall be
pleased to issue suitable writ or direction to the respondent authority to decide
the representation dated 16.11.2017 Annexure P-11 in accordance with Law.
(c)
That the Hon’ble High Court shall be
pleased to issue suitable writ or direction to the respondent authority to look
into the grievances of the petitioner in accordance with Law in respect of the
bigamous marriage violating Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1965, in case the same is made out.
(d)
Cost of this petition be also awarded
in favour of the petitioner.
Any other relief deemed fit and proper looking to the facts
and circumstances of the case may also be granted.
8.
Interim Order / Writ, if prayed for :
In view
of the facts and circumstance of the case during pendency of instant writ
petition petitioner is not seeking any interim relief but reserves his right to
raise the same in case the occasion arise, in the larger interest of justice.
9. Documents relied on
but not in possession of the petitioner :
All the relevant material and original
records in relation to subject matter in dispute is lying with respondent
authorities which my kindly be requisitioned by the Hon’ble High Court for its
kind perusal.
10.
Caveat :
That, no
notice of lodging a caveat by the opposite party is received.
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED: ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2018 (S)
PETITIONER : MRS. ASHA PATEL
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
AFFIDAVIT
I, MRS. ASHA PATEL, Aged about 40 years, W/o Mr. Jagat Lal
Patel, D/o Mr. Ram Milan Patel, Occupation – Housewife, R/o Ward No. 12,
Paliwal Colony, Khitaula, Tahsil Sihora, District – Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) Relaince : 9300721401, do hereby state on oath as under :
1. That I am the Petitioner in the above mentioned writ
petition and am fully conversant with the facts deposed to in the Writ
Petition.
2.
That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 10 of the accompanying writ petition
are true to my personal knowledge and the contents of paragraphs are based on
legal advice, which I believe to be true. No material has been concealed and no
part is false.
3.
That the Annexure No(s). P-1 to P-13 to the accompanying writ petition
are true copies of the originals and I have compared the said Annexures with
their respective originals and certify them to be true copies thereof.
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED : DEPONENT
I, MRS. ASHA PATEL,
the above named deponent do hereby verify on oath that the contents of the
affidavit above are true to my personal knowledge and nothing material has been
concealed or falsely stated. Verified at ______this______day of _______
DEPONENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2018 (S)
PETITIONER : MRS. ASHA PATEL
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
|
S.No
|
Description
of document
|
Date
of document
|
Original
copy
|
Number
of page
|
|
1.
|
Medical Certificate
|
07.06.2005
|
Xerox
|
01
(One)
|
|
2.
|
Application for grant of maternity
leave
|
14.10.2005
|
Xerox
|
01
(One)
|
|
3.
|
Birth Certificate of Kumari Palak
|
30.11.2005
|
Xerox
|
01
(One)
|
|
4.
|
Birth Register of Village –
Mahaner, Tahsil – Dhimarkheda, District- Katni (Madhya Pradesh)
|
29.11.2005
|
Xerox
|
01
(One)
|
|
5.
|
Application submitted by petitioner
|
26/28/29.09.2015
|
Xerox
|
02 (Two)
|
|
6.
|
Application under the provisions of Section 6
(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 submitted by petitioner
|
29.12.2015
|
Xerox
|
02 (Two)
|
|
7.
|
Reminder application submitted by petitioner
|
24.02.2016
|
Xerox
|
01
(One)
|
|
8.
|
Application submitted by petitioner
|
18.07.2017
|
Xerox
|
01
(One)
|
|
9.
|
Application submitted
by petitioner
|
29.08.2017
|
Xerox
|
01
(One)
|
|
10.
|
Jansunvai receipt
|
29.08.2017
|
Xerox
|
01
(One)
|
|
11.
|
Application submitted by petitioner
|
16.11.2017
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
12.
|
Postal acknowledgement as
downloaded from internet
|
|
Xerox
|
01
(One)
|
|
13.
|
Relevant extract of Rule 22 of the M.P. Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965
|
|
Xerox
|
04 (Four)
|
PLACE : JABALPUR:
DATED :
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
APPENDIX 1-A
FORMAT OF V A K A L A T N A M A
[Rules 4 (1) of the Rules framed under the Advocates Act,
1961]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2018 (S)
PETITIONER : MRS. ASHA PATEL
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
I, the petitioner named below do hereby appoint, engage and
authorize advocate (s) named below to
appear, act and plead in aforesaid case / proceeding, which shall include
applications for restoration, setting aside for ex - parte orders, corrections,
modifications, review and recall of orders assed in these proceedings, in this
Court or in any other Court in which the same may be tried / heard / proceeded
with and also in the appellate, revisional or executing Court in respect of the
proceedings arising from this case / proceedings as per agreed terms and
conditions and authorize them to sign and file
pleadings , appeals, cross objections, petitions, applications,
affidavits, or the other documents as may be deemed necessary and proper for
the prosecution / defence of the said
case in all its stages and also agrees to ratify and confirm acts done by them
as if done by me.
In witness whereof I do hereby set my hands to these
presents, the contents of which have been duly understood by me, this – day of
----------------- 2017 at Jabalpur.
Particulars (in block letters) of each Party Executing
Vakalatnama
|
Name and father s / Husband s Name
|
Registered Address
|
E-Mail Address (if any)
|
Telephone Number (if any)
|
Status in the case
|
Full Signature/
**Thumb Impression
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
(6)
|
DR. VINDHYA CHAL
SINGH, Aged about 71 years, S/o Late Mr. Mitthu Singh,
|
D-201,
Kukreja Plaza, Sector XI, Plot No. 47, Near K Star Hotel, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 40 0614
(Maharshtra)
|
|
BSNL : 9425800455
|
PETITIONER
|
|
Accepted
Particulars (in block letters) of each Advocate Accepting
Vakalatnama
|
|
Full
Name & Enrollment No. in State Bar Council
|
Address
for Service
|
E-mail
Address (if any)
|
Telephone
Number (if any)
|
Full
Signature
|
|
|
(1)
|
(2)
|
(3)
|
(4)
|
(5)
|
|
1.
|
VIJAY
RAGHAV SINGH
EN.
No. M. P. / ADV / 1554 / 2003
|
SEAT
NO. 93, GOLDEN JUBILEE BUILDING, CHAMBER NO. 317, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT
PREMISES, JABALPUR 482 001
|
|
IDEA 98261-43925
|
|
|
2.
|
MRS.
POONAM SINGH
EN.
No. M. P. / ADV / 3159 / 2004
|
-DO-
|
|
|
|
|
3.
|
AMIT
KUMAR KHARE,
EN.
No. M. P. / ADV / 1291/ 2006
|
HOUSE
NO. 1483 / 17, SARASWATI COLONY, BEHIND PARIJAT BUILDING, CHERITAL, JABALPUR
482 001
|
NIL
|
BSNL 94258 66726
LAND LINE
0761 - 2345 005
|
|
|
4.
|
VIJAY
KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, EN. No. M. P. / ADV
/ 949/ 2006
|
SEAT
NO. 81, HALL NO. 1, FIRST FLOOR, VIDHI BHAWAN, HIGH COURT PREMISES, JABALPUR
482 001
|
NIL
|
IDEA : 97539 13103
AIRTEL 97554 82448
|
|
*Score out which is not applicable
** The thumb impression shall be attested by a literate
person giving above particulars.
