Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein calls in question the order Annexure P-1 dated 2-12-2014 whereby and whereunder, respondent No. 4 – Hon’ble Chancellor of Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur (for short ‘the HNLU’) in exercise of his power conferred under Section 8(2) of the Hidayatullah National University of Law, Chhattisgarh, Act, 2003 read with Statute 19 of the Statutes contained in the Schedule to the said Act and in view of the amendment to the Statute of the University published on 25-11-2014, extended the tenure of respondent No. 5 – Prof. (Dr.) Sukh Pal Singh as Vice Chancellor of the University for a further period of five years or until he attains the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier.
The petitioner would assail the legality and validity of the order passed by the SP, Rajnandgaon on 11.3.2003 dismissing him from service; the appellate order dated 9.6.2003 passed by the IG, Police, Raipur Range and the order dismissing his mercy petition by the DGP, PHQ, Raipur in October, 2003 whereby his appeal and mercy petition were dismissed.
Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein seeks to challenge appointment of respondent No. 3 as a member of District Consumer Redressal Forum, Rajnandgaon.
It is settled law that an employee on temporary promotion would continue to hold the lien in his substantive post until it is terminated. He cannot hold two substantive posts at the same time.
1. These Writ Petitions have been preferred challenging the auction notice dated 10.6.2015 issued by the Nagar Panchayat, Bishrampur, as also for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners’ cases for allotment of shops in the light of earlier decision taken by the Nagar Panchayat, with further prayer for a direction to […]
Father of our Nation said: – “To deprive a man of his natural liberty and to deny to him the ordinary amenities of life is worse than starving the body; it is starvation of the soul, the dweller in the body.” “Mahatma Gandhi”
The petitioner No. 1 is the registered owner of Maruti Zen bearing registration No. CG.04/ZD 7655. The said vehicle was found involved in commission of offence punishable under Sections 9, 44, 51, 25 & 26(28) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (henceforth ‘Act of 1972’) and Criminal Case No. 647/2012 was registered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazaar titled as State of Chhatisgarh v. Mohammad Shoaib & another and same is pending consideration.
The present batch of arbitration matters have been preferred by the contractors assailing the order passed by the District Judge refusing to entertain the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the 1996 Act’ in short) or for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the 1996 Act.
Claiming a writ in the nature of quo warranto, Shri Santosh Sahu, the petitioner herein, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India stating inter alia that the appointment of respondent No. 3 Shri Jiten Kumar as Labour Commissioner is contrary to the statutory provisions, and for his consequent removal from the post of Labour Commissioner, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur.
The brilliant question of law that has cropped up for consideration in this petition is whether exclusion of married daughter of the deceased SECL servant for being considered for dependent employment under the terms of National Coal Wage Agreement -VI (henceforth ‘NCWA-VI”) read with National Coal Wage Agreement-IX (henceforth ‘NCWA-IX”) is just, fair and reasonable ?
