50 ACCUSED CONVICTED IN A CASE RELATING TO FODDER SCAM; AWARDED THREE TO FIVE YEARS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT WITH HEAVY FINES
|
The Special Judge, AHD Cases, Ranchi today sentenced 50 accused in a case relating to fodder scam. The following sentences were awarded to them:- Shri Lalu Prasad to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10 lakh; Dr. Jagannath Mishra to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.10 lakh; Shri Vidya Sagar Nishad, to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs.1.50 lakh; Shri Jagdish Sharma to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs.10 lakh; Shri Dhuruv Bhagat to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs.1.50 lakh; Dr. Ravindra Kumar Rana to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs.10 lakh; Shri Phool Chand Singh to undergo four years RI with fine of Rs.2 lakh; Shri Mahesh Prasad to undergo four years RI with fine of Rs.2 lakh; Shri Sajal Chakaraborty to undergo four years RI with fine of Rs. 2 lakh; Dr. Kirti Narayan Jha to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs.22 lakh (approx); Dr. Krishna Mohan Prasad to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. 22 lakh(approx); Dr. B.N. Sharma to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. 22 lakh (approx); Shri Silas Tirkey to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs.12 lakh (approx); Dr. Arjun Sharma to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs.12 lakh (approx); Md. Sayeed to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Md. Hussain to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Md. Ekram to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Dr. Tripurari Mohan Prasad to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Sushil Kumar to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs. 80,000/-; Shri Suresh Dubey to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Satendra Kumar Mehra, to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Umesh Dubey, to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs.One lakh; Shri Vijay Kumar Mallick to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Mahendra Kumar Kundan to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Rajesh Mehra to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Jag Mohan Lal Kakkar to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Sanjay Sinha to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Ravi Kumar Sinha @ Ravinandan Sinha to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Md. Zahid Hussain, to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Dayanand Prasad Kashyap to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Ram Nandan Singh to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Srinath Singh to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs. 40,000/-; Shri Sharad Kumar to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Smt. Nirmala Prasad to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs. 80,000/-; Smt. Anita Prasad to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs. 80,000/-; Shri Sidharth Kumar to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs. 80,000/-; Shri Jyoti Kumar Jha to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs. 80,000/-; Shri Bijayaeshwari Prasad Sinha to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Samir Walia to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Prakash Kumar Lal to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Devendra Kumar Roy to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Smt. Chanchala Sinha to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs. 80,000/-; Shri Subhasish Deb to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Ravi Sinha to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Dr. Ajit Kumar Verma to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Shri Mohindra Singh Bedi to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Smt Madhu Mehta to undergo three years RI with fine of Rs. 80,000/-; Shri Harish Kumar, to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh; Sri Bimal Kumar Agarwal to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh and Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha to undergo five years RI with fine of Rs. One lakh.
CBI had registered the instant case on 28.08.1996 in compliance of orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court on 11.03.1996 and 19.03.1996 respectively. It was alleged that accused public servants of District Animal Husbandry Office and District Treasury Office, Chaibasa in conspiracy with accused suppliers had fraudulently & dishonestly withdrew an amount of Rs. 37.62 crore (approx) during the Financial Year 1992-93 on the basis of false & fake allotment letters, supply orders and bills fabricated by the accused persons.
After thorough investigation, charge sheet was filed on 12.12.2001 against accused persons including Shri Lalu Prasad, Dr. Jagannath Mishra and others in the Designated Court. Charges against the accused persons were framed on 25th April 2005.
The Trial Court found 50 accused guilty and convicted them. Six accused were acquitted by the Court. 14 accused expired during trial.
|
********
|
Sunday, 28 January 2018
50 ACCUSED CONVICTED IN A CASE RELATING TO FODDER SCAM; AWARDED THREE TO FIVE YEARS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT WITH HEAVY FINES
Thursday, 25 January 2018
1995 SUPP (4) SCC 600 MISHRILAL RAMRATAN V/S AS SHAIK FATHIMAL PROOF OF NECESSITY OF - REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY COURT REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH NECESSITY, HELD, CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED OR REJECTED MERELY BECAUSE NON-EXAMINATION OF THE COMMISSIONER AS A WITNESS
1995 SUPP (4) SCC 600
MISHRILAL RAMRATAN V/S AS SHAIK FATHIMAL
PROOF OF NECESSITY OF - REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY COURT REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH NECESSITY, HELD, CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED OR REJECTED MERELY BECAUSE NON-EXAMINATION OF THE COMMISSIONER AS A WITNESS
(2015) 13 SCC 613 = AIR 2015 SC 1236 = (2016) 1 SCC (CRI) 788 = (2015) 148 AIC 244 (SC) = (2015) 3 ALL LJ 463 = (2015) 3 LW 358 (SC) = (2015) 3 ALD 13 (SC) = (2015) 110 ALR 239 ZARIF AHMED = MOHD. FAROOQ PROOF OF - EVINDENCE LED BY PARTY VERSUS - FINDING OF COURT COMMISSIONER
(2015) 13 SCC 613 = AIR 2015 SC 1236 = (2016) 1 SCC (CRI) 788 = (2015) 148 AIC 244 (SC) = (2015) 3 ALL LJ 463 = (2015) 3 LW 358 (SC) = (2015) 3 ALD 13 (SC) = (2015) 110 ALR 239 ZARIF AHMED = MOHD. FAROOQ
PROOF OF - EVINDENCE LED BY PARTY VERSUS - FINDING OF COURT COMMISSIONER
(1985) 4 SCC 333 = AIR 1986 SC 302 HARBANS LAL V/S JAGMOHAN SARAN ART. 226 - PRACTICE - APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE BY HIGH COURT UNDER - OBJECTION AGAINST REPORT RENT CONTROL COMMISSIONER NOT DISPOSED OF BY TRIAL COURT - REPORT THUS NOT A FINAL DOCUMENT AND CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION - HENCE EXAMINATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD BY HIGH COURT ON GROUND THAT REPORT HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY
(1985) 4 SCC 333 = AIR 1986 SC 302
HARBANS LAL V/S JAGMOHAN SARAN
ART. 226 - PRACTICE - APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE BY HIGH COURT UNDER - OBJECTION AGAINST REPORT RENT CONTROL COMMISSIONER NOT DISPOSED OF BY TRIAL COURT - REPORT THUS NOT A FINAL DOCUMENT AND CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION - HENCE EXAMINATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD BY HIGH COURT ON GROUND THAT REPORT HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY
Saturday, 20 January 2018
Friday, 12 January 2018
उनको ये फिक्र नहीं,मेरे देश का क्या हुआ ! वे इस पे लड़ रहे हैं कि"सरदार"अभी हम हैं !
उनको ये फिक्र नहीं,मेरे देश का क्या हुआ !
वे इस पे लड़ रहे हैं कि"सरदार"अभी हम हैं !
वे इस पे लड़ रहे हैं कि"सरदार"अभी हम हैं !
वो मुहब्बत भी उसकी थी वो नफरत भी उसकी थी, वो अपनाने और ठुकराने की अदा भी उसकी थी, मैं अपनी वफा का इन्साफ किस से मांगता, वो शहर भी उसका था वो अदालत भी उसकी थी ! Wo Mohabbat Bhi Uski Thi Wo Nafrat Bhi Uski Thi, Wo APNANE Or ‘THUKRANE’ Ki Aadat Bhi Uski Thi, Hum Apni Waafa Ka Insaf Kisse Mangte, Wo Sheher Bhi Uska Tha Wo Adalat Bhi Uski Thi !
वो मुहब्बत भी उसकी थी वो नफरत भी उसकी थी,
वो अपनाने और ठुकराने की अदा भी उसकी थी,
मैं अपनी वफा का इन्साफ किस से मांगता,
वो शहर भी उसका था वो अदालत भी उसकी थी !
वो अपनाने और ठुकराने की अदा भी उसकी थी,
मैं अपनी वफा का इन्साफ किस से मांगता,
वो शहर भी उसका था वो अदालत भी उसकी थी !
Wo Mohabbat Bhi Uski Thi Wo Nafrat Bhi Uski Thi,
Wo APNANE Or ‘THUKRANE’ Ki Aadat Bhi Uski Thi,
Hum Apni Waafa Ka Insaf Kisse Mangte,
Wo Sheher Bhi Uska Tha Wo Adalat Bhi Uski Thi !
Wo APNANE Or ‘THUKRANE’ Ki Aadat Bhi Uski Thi,
Hum Apni Waafa Ka Insaf Kisse Mangte,
Wo Sheher Bhi Uska Tha Wo Adalat Bhi Uski Thi !
तेषां नित्याभियुक्तानां योगक्षेमं वहाम्यहम् ||. अर्थात् (भगवान् श्री कृष्ण ने अर्जुन से कहा )— अनन्य भाव से मेरा चिंतन करते हुए जो भक्त जन मेरी उपासना करते हैं , उन नित्ययुक्त पुरुषों का योगक्षेम मैं वहन करता हूँ |.
तेषां नित्याभियुक्तानां योगक्षेमं वहाम्यहम् ||. अर्थात् (भगवान् श्री कृष्ण ने अर्जुन से कहा )— अनन्य भाव से मेरा चिंतन करते हुए जो भक्त जन मेरी उपासना करते हैं , उन नित्ययुक्त पुरुषों का योगक्षेम मैं वहन करता हूँ |.
"मुहम्मद है इबादत और मैं वतन पे ईमान रखता हूँ, वतन की शान की ख़ातिर हथेली जान पर रखता हूँ!! क्यों पढ़ते हो मेरी आँखों में नक्शा पाकिस्तान का/मुसलमान हूँ मैं सच्चा, दिल में हिन्दुस्तान रखता हूँ!"
"मुहम्मद है इबादत और मैं वतन पे ईमान रखता हूँ, वतन की शान की ख़ातिर हथेली जान पर रखता हूँ!! क्यों पढ़ते हो मेरी आँखों में नक्शा पाकिस्तान का/मुसलमान हूँ मैं सच्चा, दिल में हिन्दुस्तान रखता हूँ!"
*किसी शायरा ने बहुत ही उम्दा शेर कहा है, जो प्रासंगिक हो गया:* *"तलाक़ दे तो रहे हो गरूरो-गोहर के साथ,* *मेरा शबाब भी लौटा दो मेरे मेहर के साथ"*
*किसी शायरा ने बहुत ही उम्दा शेर कहा है, जो प्रासंगिक हो गया:*
*"तलाक़ दे तो रहे हो गरूरो-गोहर के साथ,*
*मेरा शबाब भी लौटा दो मेरे मेहर के साथ"*
*"तलाक़ दे तो रहे हो गरूरो-गोहर के साथ,*
*मेरा शबाब भी लौटा दो मेरे मेहर के साथ"*
Saturday, 6 January 2018
The word `profession' used to be confined to the three learned professions, the Church. Medicine and Law. It has now, I think a wonder meaning". [See : Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Maxse, 1919 1 KB 647 at p. 657].
AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 1630
Note : In this case the Judges of the Supreme Court
differ in their views. The majority view is taken by Kania M.H., K. Jagannatha
Shetty, M. Fathima Beevi and Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ. and the minority view by
Kasliwal M.M., J. The judgments are printed in the order in which they are
given in the certified copy.
M.H. KANIA, K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, N.M. KASLIWAL, Ms.
M. FATHIMA BEEVI AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.
St. Stephen's College etc., etc., Petitioner v. The
University of Delhi etc. etc., Respondent.
W.P. (C) No. 1868 of 1980 Etc. Etc., D/-6-12-1991.
AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 477
M.H. KANIA, C.J.I., M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, S. R.
PANDIAN, Dr. T. K. THOMMEN, A.M. AHMADI, KULDIP SINGH, P.B. SAWANT, R.M. SAHAI
AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.*
Writ Petns. (Civil) Nos. 930 of 1990 WITH 97 /
91,948 / 90, 966 / 90, 965 / 90, 953 / 90, 954 / 90, 971 / 90, 972 / 90, 949 /
90, 986 / 90,1079 / 90, 1106 / 90, 1158 / 90, 1071 / 90, 1069 / 90, 1077 / 90,
1119 / 90, 1053 / 90, 1102 / 90, 1120 / 90, 1112 / 90, 1276 / 90, 1148 / 90,
1105 / 90, 974 / 90, 1114 / 89, 987 / 90, 1061 / 90, 1064 / 90, 1101 / 90,1115
/ 90, 1116 / 90, 1117 / 90, 1123 / 90, 1124 / 90, 1126 / 90,1130 / 90, 1141 /
90,1307 / 90, T.C.(C) Nos. 27 / 90, 28-31 / 90, 32- 33 / 90, 34 - 35 / 90, 65 /
90, 1 / 91, W.P. (C) Nos. 1081 / 90, 343 / 91, 1362 / 90, 1094 / 91, 1087 / 90,
1128 / 90, 36/91, 3 / 91, I.A. No. 1- 20 in T.C. (C) No. 27- 35 / 90 and W.P.
(C) No. 11 / 92, 111 / 92, 261 / 92, D/- 16-11-1992.
Indra Sawhney etc. etc., Petitioners v. Union of
India and others, etc. etc., Respondents.
C. CHRISTIAN.
1. Jacobite.
2. Marthomite.
3. Syriac Catholic.
4. Latin Catholic.
5. South India United Church.
6. Other Christian."
In the then United Provinces, the term
"Backward Classes" was understood as covering both the untouchable
classes as well other "Hindu Backward" classes. Marc Galanter says :
"The United Provinces Hindu Backward Classes
League (founded in 1929) submitted a memorandum which suggested that the term
"Depressed" carried a connotation "of untouchability in the
sense of causing pollution by touch as in the case of Madras and Bombay"
and that many communities were reluctant to identify themselves as depressed.
The League suggested the term "Hindu Backward" as a more suitable
nomenclature. The list of 115 castes submitted included all candidates from the
untouchable category as well as a stratum above. "All of the listed
communities belong to non-Dwijas or degenerate or Sudra classes of the
Hindus." They were described as low socially, educationally - and
economically and were said to number over 60% of the population."
The expression "depressed and other backward
classes" occurs in the Objectives Resolution of the Constituent Assembly
moved by Jawaharlal Nehru on December 13, 1946.
The Christians are divided into a number of groups,
including the Chaldean Syrians, Jacobite Syrians, Latin Catholics` Marthom
Syrians, Syrian Catholics,and Protestants. Each of these groups practices
endogamy. Among the Catholics, the Syrian Romans and the Latin Romans generally
do not intermarry. The Christians have not wholly discarded the idea of food
restrictions and pollution by lower caste members. When lower caste Hindus were
converted to Christianity a generation or two ago, they were not allowed to sit
with high caste Christians in church, and separate churches were erected for
them."
IR 1993 SUPREME COURT 892
(From : Delhi)
S. R. PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 304 to 311 of 1991 with Writ
Petn. (Cri) No. 114 of 1991, D/-28-8-1992.
The Janata Dal Appellant v. H.S. Chowdhary and
others, Respondents.
he argument is that although Cyprus is an
independent and sovereign republic with a democratic Constitution, die seats in
the legislature are divided between the Greek population following the
Greek-Orthodox Church and the Muslim Turkish community. There is a division
even at the highest level, the President always to be a Greek Christian and the
Vice-President a Muslim Turk. Mr. Nariman emphasised on the separate electorate
provided by Cyprus Constitution and urged that these provisions do not render
the Constitution undemocratic or illegal. He also referred to the Statesman's
Year Book (containing statistical and historical annual of the States of the
world for the year 1985-86) showing that the population of the Christian
community following Greek-Orthodox Church was in 1983, 5,28,700 but was
allotted only 70% of the seats in the legislature, and the Turkish Muslims with
a population of only 1,22,900, the remaining 30% of seats. In other words the
Muslims forming only about 20% of the total population
_________--___________________________________________________
AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 2086
K. RAMASWAMY AND R. M. SAHAI, JJ.
Writ Petn. (C) No. 715 of 1990, D/- 13-5-1993.
All India Imam Organization and others, Petitioners
v. Union of India and others, Respondents.
. The mosque differs from a church or a temple in
many respects. 'Ceremonies and service connected with marriages and birth are
never performed in mosques. The rites that are important and integral functions
of many churches such as confessions, penitences and confirmations do not exist
in the mosques.*6
AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 1918
(From : AIR 1990 Karnataka 5 (FB))
S. R. PANDIAN, A. M. AHMADI, KULDIP SINGH, J. S.
VERMA, P. B. SAWANT, K. RAMASWAMY, S. C. AGRAWAL, YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND B. P.
JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.*
Civil Appeal No. 3645 of 1989, with (T.C.(C) Nos. 5
to 9 of 1993; C.A. Nos. 193, 194, 1692, 1692A, 1692C and 4627-30 of 1993 and
I.A. No.4 in C.A. No. 1692 of 1993), D/-11-3-1994.
S. R. Bommai and others etc. etc., Appellants v.
Union of India and others etc. etc., Respondents.
FEDERALISM UNDER CONSTITUTION
n short, in the affairs of the State (in its widest
connotation), religion is irrelevant; it is strictly a personal affair. In this
sense and in this behalf, our Constitution is broadly in agreement with the
U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment whereof declares that "Congress
shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof......." (generally referred to as the
"establishment clause"). Perhaps, this an echo of the doctrine of
separation of Church and State; may be it is the modern political thought which
seeks to separate religion from the State - it matters very little. In this
view of the matter, it is absolutely erroneous to say that secularism is a
"vacuous word" or a
25. The great
Statesman-Philosopher Dr. Radhakrishnan said:
"When India is said to be a secular State, it
does not mean that we reject reality of an unseen spirit or the relevance of
religion to life or that we exalt irreligion. It does not mean that Secularism
itself becomes a positive religion or that the State assumes divine
prerogatives. Though faith in the Supreme is the basic principle of the Indian
tradition, the Indian State will not identify itself with or be controlled by
any particular religion. We hold that no
one religion should be given preferential status, or unique distinction, that
no one religion should be accorded special privileges in national life or
international relations for that would be a violation of the basic principles
of democracy and contrary to the best
interests of religion and Government. This view of religious impartiality, of
comprehension and forbearance, has a prophetic role to play within the national
and @page-SC1951 international life. No
group of citizens shall arrogate to itself rights and privileges which it
denies to others. No person should suffer any form of disability or
discrimination because of his religion but all like should be free to share to
the fullest degree in the common life. This is the basic principle involved in
the separation of Church and State."
(Recovery of Faith, New York, Harper brothers 1955,
p. 202).
(Emphasis
supplied).
Immediately after we attained independence, the
Constituent Assembly, aware of the danger of communalism, passed the following
resolution on April 3, 1948: 1
AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 605
M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, C.J.I., A.M. AHMADI, J.S.
VERMA, G.N. RAY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.*
Transferred Case (C) Nos. 41, 43 and 45 of 1993 With
Writ Petn. (Civil) No. 208 of 1993 With Spl. Ref. No. 1 of 1993 With I.A. No. 1
of 1994 in T.C.(C) No. 44 of 1993 WITH Writ Petn. (C) No. 186 of 1994,
D/-24-10-1994.
Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui etc, Petitioners v. Union of
India and others, Respondents.
84. Section 3(26) of the General
Clauses Act comprehends the categories of properties known to Indian Law. Article 367 of the Constitution adopts this
secular concept of property for purposes of our Constitution. A temple, church or mosque etc. are
essentially immovable properties and subject to protection under Articles 25
and 26. Every immovable property is liable to be acquired. Viewed in the proper perspective, a mosque
does not enjoy any additional protection which is not available to religious
places of worship of other religions.
85. The correct position may be
summarised thus. Under the Mahomedan Law
applicable in India, title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession (See
Mulla's Principles of Mahomedan Law, 19th Edn. by M. Hidayatullah - S.217
and AIR 1940 PC 116). If that is the position in law, there can be
no reason to hold that a mosque has a unique or special status, higher than
that of the places of worship of other religions in secular India to make it
immune from acquisition by exercise of the sovereign or prerogative power of
the State.
AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 2001
(From : Kerala)*
R.M. SAHAI, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.C. SEN, JJ.**
Civil Appeal Nos. 4958-60 of 1990, etc. etc., D/-
20-6-1995.
Most. Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan and others, etc.
etc., Appellants v. Moran Mar Marthoma and another etc. etc., Respondents.
D) Constitution of India, Art.25 - Civil P.C. (5 of
1908), S.9, Expln.1 - Right to religion - Includes right to seek declaration
that Church was episcopal - Civil suit for such declaration is maintainable
under S.9 -Scope and ambit of Expln. 1 to S.9 - Not restrictive.
Per R.M. SAHAI, J. :- The declaration that the
Church is episcopal is covered in the expansive expression of religion. The
word 'episcopal, means of or pertaining to bishops, having a Govt. vested in
bishop'. A suit for declaration of such a right would be maintainable under
Section 9. Not only because it is claim to an office but also because there is
no other forum where such dispute can be resolved. If a disput
. M. SAHAI, J. :- When Lord Jesus Christ was asked by
a youngman who was possessed of property what was the road to heaven, the Holy
Bible records it in Chapter 19 of the New Testament - the Gospel According to
St. Mathew thus, @page-SC2010
"16. And, behold, one came and said unto him,
Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17. And he said unto him. Why callest thou me good?
there is none good but one, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life,
keep the commandments.
18. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt
do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt
not bear false witness,
19. Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Thou
shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20. The young man s
20. The young man saith unto him, All these things
have I kept from my youth up : what lack I yet?
21. Jesus said unto him, if thou wilt be perfect, go
and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in
heaven : and come and follow me.
22. But when the young man heard that saying, he
went away sorrowful : for he had great possessions."
AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 550
KULDIP SINGH, S.C. AGRAWAL AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 668 of 1993, (with C. A. Nos. 689
OF 1993, 4664-4665 etc., of 1994; 10039; 10052-80 of 1995 and W. P. (C) No. 16
of 1994 and S. L. P. (C) Nos. 6885 of 1992 and 18497, 351 of 1993 etc. etc.,
D/- 13-11-1995.
Indian Medical Association, Appellant v. V.P.
Shantha and others, Respondents.
(A) Words and Phrases - Profession - Characteristics
- How different from occupation. (Paras
20, 21)
The word
`profession' used to be confined to the three learned professions, the Church.
Medicine and Law. It has now, I think a wonder meaning". [See :
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v. Maxse, 1919 1
KB 647 at p. 657].
AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 1023
K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Writ Petns. (C) Nos. 713 and 908, 1066 , 1359 and
1375 of 1987 and Transfer Cases Nos. 169 of 1988, 60 of 1989, D/- 17-1-1996.
Pannalal Bansilal Patil and others etc., Petitioners
v. State of A.P. and another, Respondents.
15. In the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments.
Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt. (1954) SCR 1005 :
(AIR 1954 SC 282), known as Shirur Mutt case this Court had held that the
language of Article 25 indicates to secure to every person subject to public
order, health and morality, a freedom not only to entertain such religious
belief as may be approved of by his judgment and conscience but also to exhibit
his belief in such outward acts as he thinks proper and to propagate or
disseminate his ideas for the edification of other. It is the propagation of
belief that is protected no matter whether the propagation takes place in a
church, or monastery or in a temple or parlour meeting. At page 1023 (of SCR):
(at p. 290 of AIR) it was held that the word "religion" has not been
defined in the Constitution and it is a term which is hardly susceptible of any
rigid definition. Religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or
communities and it is not necessarily theistic. Religion undoubtedly has its
basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines which are regarded by those who
profess that religion conducive to their spiritual well being.
AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 3121
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,
S.C. SEN AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.
Civil Appeal Nos. 4958-60 of 1990 with C. A. Nos.
4953, 4957, 4989, 4954-56 of 1990, 6070
and 6071-74 of 1995, D/- 25-3-1996.
Most Rev. P. M. A. Metropolitan and others, etc.,
Appellants v. Moran Mar Marthoma Mathews and another, etc., Respondents.
AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1035
(From : Kerala)
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, SUHAS C. SEN AND S.B. MAJMUDAR,
JJ.
Interlocutory Appln. Nos. 1-9 in Civil Appeal Nos. 4958-60
of 1990 with C. A. Nos. 4953, 4954-56, 4957 and 4989 of 1990 and 6070 and 6071-6074
of 1995 with I. A. Nos. 10-12, 13-15, 16-27 and 31-32 in Civil Appeal Nos.
4958-60 of 1990, D/- 5-2-1997.
Most. Rev. P. M. A. Metropolitan and others etc.,
Appellants v. Moran Mar Marthoma Mathews and another etc., Respondents.
(A) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O.20, R.6 - Contents of
decree - Ecclesiastical law - Dispute regarding Malankara Jawkite Syrian Church
- Resolved vide judgement in 1995 AIR SCW 3133 - Drawing up of decree - Manner
and contents of decree indicated. (Para
2)
(B) Constitution of India, Art.25 - Constitution of
Malankara Association (1934), Art.71, Art.46 - Substitution of Arts. 71 and 46
by Supreme Court by order D/- 25-3-96 (1996 AIR SCW 1630) - Word 'families'
erroneously used in substituted Articles instead of words "members of the
Parish assembly" - Words "family" or "families"
occurring in two articles directed to be substituted by words
"member" or 'members' as the case may be - First proviso in Art. 71
deleted. (Para 3)
AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 2120
(From : Delhi)*
S.C. AGRAWAL, G.N. RAY, Dr. A.S. ANAND, S.P.
BHARUCHA AND S. RAJENDRA BABU, JJ.**
P. V. Narsimha Rao, Appellant v. State (CBI/SPE)
etc. etc., Respondents.
Crl. Appeals Nos. 1207-1208 of 1997 (with Crl. A.
Nos. 1209-1222 of 1997 and 186 of 1998 (arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) Nos. 2,
187 and 366 of 1998), D/- 17-4-1998.
AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 427
(From : Madhya Pradesh)
T.K. THOMMEN AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.
Civil Appeal No.2272 of 1972, D/-18-12-1990.
Hari Ram and others, Appellants v. Babu Gokul
Prasad, Respondent.
M.P. Revenue Code (1954), S.166 - M.P. Land Revenue
Code (20 of 1959), S.185, S.182 - Land in dispute in Mahakoshal region -Annual
tenancy for agricultural year - Tenancy came to end in June 1959 - However
landlord permitting tenant to continue as such - Tenancy continued in law -
M.P. Revenue Code enforced in 1959 - Tenant and his predecessors were
sub-tenants from 1912 to 1959-60 - Tenant held, became ordinary tenant in 1954
under 1954 Code and occupancy tenant in 1959 - Acquired Bhumiswami rights.
Decision of Madh. Pra. High Court, Reversed. (Para 5)
AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 489
(From : M.P. High Court)
T.K. THOMMEN AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 1046 of 1982, D/-29-1-1991.
The State of M.P. and others, Appellants v. Mr.
Krishnarao Shinde and others, Respondents. @page-SC49
M.P. Land Revenue Code (20 of 1959), S.181, S.182(i)
- Government lessee - Land held by Company on lease from erstwhile Gwalior
State after it had been acquired - Finding in earlier proceedings that Company
was not Pakka tenant becoming final - Company holding land from State Government
in terms of old agreement as well as under fresh agreement - It is a
"Government lessee" - Large amounts due and payable by company as
rent for period far in excess of three months - Company is liable to eviction
u/S.182(2)(i).
Misc. Petn.84 of 1978 dt.20-9-1980
(M.P.) Reversed. (Paras 5 to 8, 10)
AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 1239
(From : Madhya Pradesh)
M. FATHIMA BEEVI AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 4010 of 1983, D/-22-4-1992.
Mst. Kanchaniya and others, Appellants v. Shiv Ram
and others, Respondents.
(A) Kawaid Maufidaran, S.13 -
Qanoon Mal, S.2(29), S.265 - Maufi grant in respect of temple - Grant resumed
and @page-SC1240 pujari appointed under
S.13 - Rights of pujari - His rights as Kashtakar Mourushi are subjected to
overriding conditions - Cannot transfer by lease, mortgage or sale, land
entrusted to him.
(B) M.P. Land Revenue Code (20 of 1959), S.248,
S.237, S.2(Z-3) - Summary ejectment of person in unauthorised possession - Land
in question set apart for upkeep of temple - Falls under Cl.(j) of S.237(1) -
Possession claimed by evictee to be under 'patta' executed for life time by
Pujari of temple - Death of evictee during pendency of proceedings - Possession
of his heirs becomes unauthorised - They (heirs) cannot say that they could not
be ejected under S.248. (Paras 19,
22)
AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 999
(From : Madhya Pradesh)
K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 11068 of 1995 (arising out of SLP
(C) No. 13669 of 1995), D/- 23-11-1995.
Bhagwan Das and another, Appellants v. Sardar Atma
Singh, Respondent.
M.P. Land Revenue Code (20 of 1959), S.190 -
'Bhumiswami' - Allotment of land to a person along with temporary sanad in 1954
i.e. before coming into force of Code - Permanent sanad given after coming into
force of Code - Continuing of possession and of right of allottee for all such
years, proved - He must be deemed to have become Bhumiswami in 1954. (Para 7)
AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 1699
(From : Madhya Pradesh)
K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.
Civil Appeal
No. 1589 of 1986, D/-18-12-1996
Kalika Prasad and another, Appellants v. Chhatrapal
Singh (dead) by L.Rs., Respondent.
Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Art.64 - Suit for
declaration of title and possession - Respondents claimed adverse possession -
Initially possession was permissible under Power of Attorney which was
subsequently cancelled - Abolition of estate thereafter and appellant obtained
Patta under S. 189 - No notice given to respondent - No action taken to eject
him from land and he remained in uninterrupted possession well over 12 years -
Respondents have perfected title by adverse possession.
M.P. Land Revenue Code (20 of 1959), S.189, S.190. (Para 4)
MRS. ARCHANA SHRIVASTAVA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS W/O MR. DHARMESH SHRIVSTAVA R/O HOUSE NO. 937, STREET NO. 3. BAI KA BAGICHA GHAMAPUR, JABALPUR (M. P.)
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE, SAGAR
CRIMINAL
REVISION No. OF 2005
1. AJEET PRAKASH ADHOLIYA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/o MR. BRAJ BIHARI LAL ADHOLIYA
R/o SECTOR - 5, BLOCK - GP & EP, SALT LAKE, ELECTRONICS
COMPLEX, KOLKATA - 700 091 (WEST BENGAL)
2. BRAJ BIHARI LAL ADHOLIYA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/o LATE MR. MATA PRASAD ADHOLIYA
3. MRS. CHANDRA PRABHA ADHOLIYA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
W/O MR. BRAJ BIHARI LAL ADHOLIYA
No. 2 & 3 ARE ALL R/o
HOUSE NO. 34, KACHNAR, CITY, POLICE STATION - LORDGANJ, JABALPUR (M. P.).
4. MRS. ARCHANA SHRIVASTAVA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
W/O MR. DHARMESH SHRIVSTAVA
R/O HOUSE NO. 937, STREET NO. 3. BAI KA BAGICHA
GHAMAPUR, JABALPUR (M. P.)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH
THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE
OFFICER
POLICE STATION - MAHILA
THANA
DISTRICT- SAGAR (M. P.)
CRIME NO. 11/2005
OFFENCE U/s 498-A, 294, 34
IPC (45 of 1860).
CRIMINAL
REVISION UNDER SECTION 397 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1974.
Being aggreived by the
Judgement and Order dated 19.11.2005 passed by the Learned Court of Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, P. O.- Mr. Sagar, in Criminal
Case No. 300 / 2005 in the matter of the state of Madhya Pradesh v/s Ajeet
Prakash & Ors.the applicants named above most humbly and respectfully beg
to prefer this revision petition on following facts and grounds amongest the
others:
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. The applicants are the husband, parents-in-law and
sisters-in-law of the complainant Mrs. Vijaya Shrivastava. The gist of the
allegation of the complainant, Mrs. Vijaya Shrivastava is that on account of
dowry demands, she had been mal-treated and humiliated not only in the house of
the in-laws at Jabalpur but as a consequence of such events, the husband of the
complainant had also demanded dowry at Kolkata and had also assaulted her.
2. The applicants contended before the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Sagar that the criminal case was not maintainable
before the said learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sagar because the
cause of action took place only at Jabalpur and Kolkata which was outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at Sagar. A prayer was also
made to quash the summons issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First
Class, Sagar.
3. The applicants have submitted that it will be evident from the
FIR that the complainant has alleged that she had been subjected to cruel
treatment persistently at Jabalpur and also at Kolkata and incident taking
place at Sagar is not an isolated event,
but consequential to the series of incidents taking place at Jabalpur.
"498A. Husband or
relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. - Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation - For the
purposes of this section "cruelty" means :
(a) Any wilful conduct
which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or
to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman or
(b) harassment of the
woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security
or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand."
hence this revision
petition is on following grounds;
a. the impugned order, if
allowed to continue would ocsassion failure of justice
b. the learned trial court
failed to exercise power vested under the leaw.
c. the impungned is
perverse, malafide, not sustainble in law.
d. the learned trial erred
in not only on the point of facts but on the point of Law.
e. the lerned trial Court
did not consided the material facts availabel on the record. even the avrements
made in the objection have not been dealt in their proper perspective.
PRYER
It is therefore most
humbly and respectfully prayed that the impugned Judgement and Order dated
19.11.2005 passed by the Learned Court
of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, P. O.- Mr. Sagar, in Criminal Case No. 300 / 2005 in the matter of the
state of Madhya Pradesh v/s Ajeet Prakash & Ors. may kindly be quashed in
the larger interst of justice with costs throughout.
SAGAR
DATED COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTS
MRS. TARA CHAURASIA, Aged about 52 years, W/o Mr. Naresh Chaurasia, Occupation – dismissed Government Servant, R/o C/o Ms. Krishna Chaurasia, Plot No. 31, Kundan Nagar, BHEL Sangam Square, Bag Mugalia, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal – 462 043 (Madhya Pradesh), IDEA : 7697816961
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF
2018 (S)
PETITIONER : MRS. TARA CHAURASIA
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
Advocate General 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. TARA CHAURASIA
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.
|
Chronology of Events
|
|
3 & 4
|
|
4.
|
Memo of Writ petition with affidavit
|
|
5 TO 14
|
|
5.
|
List of documents.
|
|
15
|
|
6.
|
Copy of the appointment order dated 24.05.1997
|
P-1
|
16
|
|
7.
|
Copy of the
appointment order dated 26.05.1997
|
P-2
|
17
|
|
8.
|
Copy of the petitioner’s Identity Card dated 27.05.2002
|
P-3
|
18
|
|
9.
|
Copy of the
show cause notice dated 09.05.2002
|
P-4
|
19
|
|
10.
|
Copy of Training Order dated
09.05.2002
|
P-5
|
20
|
|
11.
|
Copy of the show cause notice dated 18.06.2002
|
P-6
|
21
|
|
12.
|
Copy of the reply dated 27.07.2002
|
P-7
|
22
|
|
13.
|
Copy of the
show cause notice dated 26.08.2002
|
P-8
|
23
|
|
14.
|
Copy of the show cause notice dated 13.01.2003
|
P-9
|
24
|
|
15.
|
Copy of the
application dated 13.01.2004 for re-instating back in service
|
P-10
|
25
|
|
16.
|
Copy of the Public complaint Redressal Department,
Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal communication dated 19.01.2204
|
P-11
|
26
|
|
17.
|
Copy of the appointment order dated 08.03.2004
|
P-12
|
27
|
|
18.
|
VAKALATNAMA
|
|
28
|
|
19.
|
COURT
FEE
|
|
29
|
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED
: ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. OF
2017 (S)
PETITIONER : MRS. TARA CHAURASIA
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
|
S.No
|
Date
|
Events
|
|
1.
|
24.05.1997
|
Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant at Anganwadi
Centre No. 94, on temporary basis for a period of 3 months from the date of
appointment looking to her application previous services rendered by her.
|
|
2.
|
26.05.1997
|
Petitioner was
appointed as an Anganwadi Assistant at Anganwadi Ward No. 5, Anganwadi Centre
No. 94, on government approved emoluments of Rs.200/- as a contingency paid
employee.
|
|
3.
|
27.05.2002
|
Petitioner was to serve as a cook (Rasoiyya) in the
office of Chief Secretary in the year 2002.
|
|
4.
|
09.05.2002
|
Since
petitioner was to work as a cook therefore a show cause notice was issued to
her as to un-authorised absence from service.
|
|
5.
|
09.05.2002
|
Petitioner was
directed to take part in a 48 days training at Anganwadi Worker Training
Centre, Kalyani Hostel Premises, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal.
|
|
6.
|
18.06.2002
|
Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated
18.06.2002 as to why she was not undergone training on two occasions so also
absent from duties.
|
|
7.
|
27.07.2002
|
Petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice
dated 09.05.2002 stating that he was present in the duties and submitted her
regret for default of non-availability during inspection.
|
|
8.
|
26.08.2002
|
Since
petitioner was to work as a cook therefore a show cause notice was issued to
her as to un-authorised absence from service.
|
|
9.
|
13.01.2003
|
Petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated
13.01.2003 as to why she was not undergone training on two occasions so also
absent from duties.
|
|
10.
|
13.01.2004
|
Petitioner made
an application for re-instating back in service.
|
|
11.
|
19.01.2004
|
Petitioner made and application to Hon’ble Chief
Minister which was directed to Public complaint Redressal Department, Vallabh
Bhawan, Bhopal.
|
|
12.
|
08.03.2004
|
Petitioner was appointed on dated 08.03.2004 as an
Anganwadi Karyakarta at Anganwadi Ward No. 1, Anganwadi Centre No. 94, on the
recommendation of Secretary, Mahila Bal Vikas Samiti, Nagar Nigam Vide its
letter No. 34 dated 17.02.2002 on a monthly emolument of Rs.500/- and directed
him to join the services within 7 days from the date of receipt of
appointment order.
|
|
13.
|
|
Petitioner
preferred a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
against in-action on the part of the respondent in not allowing the petitioner
to join the services, 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 2017 (O)
PETITIONER : MRS. TARA CHAURASIA,
Aged about 52 years, W/o Mr. Naresh Chaurasia, Occupation –
dismissed Government Servant, R/o C/o Ms. Krishna Chaurasia, Plot No. 31, Kundan
Nagar, BHEL Sangam Square, Bag Mugalia, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal – 462 043 (Madhya Pradesh), IDEA :
7697816961
.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : 1. THE STATE
OF MADHYA
PRADESH, Through the Principal Secretary, Women and Child Development
Department, Ministry, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal – (Madhya Pradesh).
2. Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Project, Motia Park, 7-A,
Medical Hostel Road, Shaheed Nagar, Bhopal – (Madhya Pradesh). Phone : 0755- 255 0910.
(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: 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 allowing the petitioner to
join the services. From pillar
to post petitioner, being the septuagenarian, knocked every door for the
redressal of his 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. Without publication of the
show cause notice in the local newspaper petitioner can be removed ? is the
question involved in this writ petition.
Integrated
Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme
Launched on 2nd October 1975, today, ICDS
Scheme represents one of the world's largest and most unique programmes for
early childhood development. ICDS is the foremost symbol of India's commitment
to her children – India's response to the challenge of providing pre-school
education on one hand and breaking the vicious cycle of malnutrition,
morbidity, reduced learning capacity and mortality, on the other.
Objectives
The Integrated Child Development Services
(ICDS) Scheme was launched in 1975 with the following objectives:
(i)to improve the nutritional and health
status of children in the age-group 0-6 years
(ii) to lay the foundation for
proper psychological, physical and social development of the child
(iii) to reduce the incidence
of mortality, morbidity, malnutrition and school dropout
(iv) to achieve effective
co-ordination of policy and implementation amongst the various departments to
promote child development
(v) to enhance the capability
of the mother to look after the normal health and nutritional needs of the
child through proper nutrition and health education.
Services
The above objectives are sought to be
achieved through a package of services comprising
(i) supplementary nutrition.
(ii) immunization.
(iii) health check-up .
(iv) referral services.
(v) pre-school non-formal education
and .
(vi) nutrition & health
education.
The concept of providing a package of
services is based primarily on the consideration that the overall impact will
be much larger if the different services develop in an integrated manner as the
efficacy of a particular service depends upon the support it receives from
related services.
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
It is
most humbly and respectfully submitted that there is no delay in filing of the
instant writ petition.
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 was
appointed as an Assistant at Anganwadi Centre No. 94, on temporary basis for a
period of 3 months from the date of appointment looking to her application
previous services rendered by her. Copy of the appointment order dated
24.05.1997 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-1. Petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Assistant at Anganwadi
Ward No. 5, Anganwadi Centre No. 94, on government approved emoluments of
Rs.200/- as a contingency paid employee. Copy of the appointment order dated 26.05.1997
is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-2.
3.
Petitioner was to
serve as a cook (Rasoiyya) in the office of Chief Secretary in the year 2002.
Copy of the petitioner’s Identity Card dated 27.05.2002 is filed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-3. Since
petitioner was to work as a cook therefore a show cause notice was issued to
her as to un-authorised absence from service. Copy of the show cause notice
dated 09.05.2002 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-4.
4.
Petitioner was
directed to take part in a 48 days training at Anganwadi Worker Training
Centre, Kalyani Hostel Premises, Shivaji Nagar, Bhopal. Copy of Training Order
dated 09.05.2002 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-5. Petitioner was served with a show cause notice
dated 18.06.2002 as to why she was not undergone training on two occasions so
also absent from duties. Copy of the show cause notice dated 18.06.2002 is
filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-6. Petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice dated
09.05.2002 stating that he was present in the duties and submitted her regret
for default of non-availability during inspection. Copy of the reply dated
27.07.2002 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-7. Since petitioner was to
work as a cook therefore a show cause notice was issued to her as to
un-authorised absence from service. Copy of the show cause notice dated
26.08.2002 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-8.
5.
Petitioner was
served with a show cause notice dated 13.01.2003 as to why she was not
undergone training on two occasions so also absent from duties. Copy of the
show cause notice dated 13.01.2003 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-9. Petitioner made an
application for re-instating back in service. Copy of the application dated
13.01.2004 for re-instating back in service is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-10.
6.
Petitioner made
and application to Hon’ble Chief Minister which was directed to Public
complaint Redressal Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal. Copy of the Public
complaint Redressal Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal communication dated
19.01.2204 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure
P-11. Petitioner was appointed on dated 08.03.2004 as an Anganwadi
Karyakarta at Anganwadi Ward No. 1, Anganwadi Centre No. 94, on the
recommendation of Secretary, Mahila Bal Vikas Samiti, Nagar Nigam Vide its
letter No. 34 dated 17.02.2002 on a monthly emolument of Rs.500/- and directed
him to join the services within 7 days from the date of receipt of appointment
order. Copy of the appointment order dated 08.03.2004 is filed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-12. Thereafter the petitioner was removed from the service by
using capricious, colorable exercise of power and arbitrarily. Hence this
petition on following grounds amongst the others
6. Grounds urged :
A. For that, The
issue as raised herein as to whether the petitioner, a anganwadi worker, has a
right to serve beyond 60 years of age, is no more res-integra and has been
settled at rest by the decision in W. P. No. 13320 of 2009(s) (Smt. Santosh Dubey v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others) and bunch of petitions by order dated 04-03-2010
wherein it was held :-
"13.
The Ministry of Woman and Child Development Department of the State Government
issued instructions on 27.5.2006 which lays down therein the service conditions
of the Anganwadi Workers and Sahayika. The circular issued on 27.5.2006 was in
supersession of the earlier instructions issued on 29.1.2001, 2.3.2002,
27.5.1996 and 12.9.2002. Under the said instructions the State Government laid
down the criteria for appointment of Anganwadi Worker/Sahayika, preference for
their appointment, procedure for selection and appointment, procedure for their
removal on the post of Anganwadi Worker/Sahayika. Clause B-5 deals with removal
of Anganwadi Sahayika. As per clause-D, the services of Anganwadi Worker/
Sahayika will be terminated on their attaining the age of 60 years after giving
one month's notice to them by the Project Officer. As per ICDS Scheme which
deals with the functions and responsibilities and its implementation was left
to the State Government and the State Government in pursuance thereto issue
instructions and, therefore, it cannot be said that the State Government is not
competent to remove them on their attaining the age of 60 years. As per the
said instructions/policy, the services of the petitioners can be discontinued
after their attaining the age of 60 years. The said instructions was also
superseded by the Ministry of Woman and Child Development Department of
Government of Madhya Pradesh by its instruction dated 10.7.2007. As per
instructions dated 10.7.2007, the services of Anganwadi Worker/Sahayika shall
be discontinued on attaining the age of 60 years.
B. For that, The circular dated 27.8.2003 was issued by the
Directorate of Woman and Child Development as at the relevant time the State
Government did not fix the maximum age of remaining in the job for Anganwadi
Worker/Sahayika. The aforesaid order merely conveys that Anganwadi
Worker/Sahayika can function even beyond the age of 58 years subject to
assessment of their physical efficiency and, therefore, all the petitioners and
other similarly situated Anganwadi Workers/Sahayika were allowed to function
beyond the age of 58 years. Thereafter, the State Government issued a policy
dated 27.5.2006 and 10.7.2007, wherein it is very specifically stipulated that
the Anganwadi Worker and Sahayika shall be automatically discontinued on
attaining the age of 60 years.
C. For that, The posts of Anganwadi Workers are not statutory
posts. They have been created in terms of the scheme. It is one thing to say
that there exists a relationship of employer and employee by and between the
State and Anganwadi Workers but it is another thing to say that they are
holders of civil posts.
D. For that, As per circular dated 10.7.2007 issued by the
State Government, retirement age of Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi
Helpers is 60 years. They being honorary workers, are paid monthly honorarium
decided by the Government from time to time. The guidelines/policy framed by
the State Government which authorized the State Government to appoint them and
take disciplinary action and also terminate their services are applicable to
them and it cannot be said that they cannot be retired after completing the age
of 60 years without any appraisal to their efficiency as required by the
instructions of Government of India dated 15.6.1988.
E. For that, The association of the petitioner also
challenged the action of respondents by filing W.P. No. 10888/2009(PIL)
(Anganwadi Karyakarta Avam Sahayika Akta Union vs. State of M.P. and others) in
which this court rejected the prayer of interim relief and observed that in
case of success the members of the petitioner's union shall be entitled to all
consequential benefits.
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 authorities to re-instate
back the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
(c)
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 the respondent authorities be directed to maintain status quo in
respect of services of petitioner, 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. TARA CHAURASIA
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
AFFIDAVIT
I, MRS. TARA CHAURASIA, Aged about 52 years, W/o Mr. Naresh
Chaurasia, Occupation – dismissed Government Servant, R/o C/o Ms. Krishna
Chaurasia, Plot No. 31, Kundan Nagar, BHEL Sangam Square, Bag Mugalia,
Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal – 462 043 (Madhya Pradesh), IDEA : 7697816961, 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-12
to the accompanying writ petition are true copies of the originals and I have
compared the said Annexure with their respective originals and certify them to
be true copies thereof.
PLACE : JABALPUR
DATED : DEPONENT
VERIFICATION
I, MRS. TARA CHAURASIA, 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. TARA CHAURASIA
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS : THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
|
S.No
|
Description of document
|
Date of document
|
Original copy
|
Number of page
|
|
1.
|
Appointment order of petitioner
|
24.05.1997
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
2.
|
Appointment order of petitioner
|
26.05.1997
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
3.
|
Petitioner’s Identity Card
|
27.05.2002
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
4.
|
Show cause
notice issued to petitioner
|
09.05.2002
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
5.
|
Training Order
|
09.05.2002
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
6.
|
Show cause notice issued to petitioner
|
18.06.2002
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
7.
|
Reply filed by petitioner
|
27.07.2002
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
8.
|
Show cause
notice issued to petitioner
|
26.08.2002
|
Xerox
|
03 (Three)
|
|
9.
|
Show cause notice issued to petitioner
|
13.01.2003
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
10.
|
Application for
re-instating back in service
|
13.01.2004
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
11.
|
Public complaint Redressal Department, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal communication
|
19.01.2004
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
|
11.
|
Appointment order issued to petitioner
|
08.03.2004
|
Xerox
|
01 (One)
|
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. TARA CHAURASIA
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)
|
E-Mail : drvcsingh.1945@gamil.com
|
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)