#Cases Archives - Prime Legal

30 Nov

Authorities Directed To Resolve The Grievance Regarding The Bid: Patna High Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #Cases, #law, #Legal News, #Legal Report, #Patna HC

Citation: CWJC No.5556 of 2023

Decided On: 01-11-2023

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice P. B. Bajanthri And Honourable Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Jha

Introduction:

In the instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

To issue a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari to quash and cancel the result of the bid held on 10.03.2023 at 11:00 A.M. 11.50 A.M. (Annexure-3) for settlement of parking stand of scootere/motorcycle, car/other four wheelers, auto (vikaram), auto (bajaj) at south side karbigahiya of Patna Junction Railway Station for 3 years in favour of M/s Maruti Foundation.
To quash and cancel all other action or actions, order or orders agreement if any executed in favour of Respondent in continuation or in relation to the aforementioned settlement being arbitrary, illegal, malafide and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Facts:

Petitioner and eight respondents alongwith others participated in bid for settlement of parking stand of Scooter/Motorcycle, Car/other four wheelers, auto (Vikaram), auto (Bajaj) at south side Karbigahiya of Patna Junction Railway Station for a period of three years.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an arbitrary decisions on behalf of the respondents in so far as the acceptance of bid with reference to the timing on 10.03.2023. Prima facie, it is too technical and the same cannot be adjudicated under Article 226. The concerned authority/competent authority has failed to take any decision either accepting or rejecting the petitioner’s claim.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

It is also submitted that in not awarding contract to the petitioner with reference to his bid, the respondent railway authorities have already put themselves into loss. These are all the materials information which is required to be taken note of by the competent authority before deciding the petitioner’s grievance dated 13.03.2023 and 20.03.2023.

The concerned authorities is directed to pass a detailed speaking order on the grievance of the petitioner and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of one month. With that direction the writ is disposed by the court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written By : Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement

30 Nov

Court Decides To Quash The Case When The Parties Agree On Settlement: Patna High Court

Prime Legal

Blog #Cases, #law, #Legal News, #Legal Report, #Patna HC

Title: Deepak Kumar v State of Bihar

Citation: CR. MISC. No.40319 of 2022

Decided On: 01-11-2023

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma

Introduction:

The present quashing application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura in connection with Sheikhpura Mahila P.S. Case No. 38 of 2019, G.R. No. 674 of 2019 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 504, 452 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Facts:

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that after the police submitted charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and after framing of the charges, on intervention of the well wishers, the parties have compromised the case. It is next submitted that the opposite party herein does not intend to pursue with the case or the trial.

Mr. Purushotam Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party concurs with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that he has instruction to make submissions on behalf of the opposite party that the opposite party does not have any objection in the event if the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the opposite party and evaluating that both the parties agree on the settlement and there is no party who wants to pursue the case. The court quashed the Case No. 38 of 2019, G.R. No. 674 of 2019 whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 504, 452 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Written By : Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view the judgement

24 Nov

State government acceptance to Pay revision commission does not make it automatically applicable to the employees of BIADA : Patna HC

Prime Legal

blog #Cases, #law, #Legal News, #Legal Report

Title: Rameshwar Prasad Roy v State of Bihar and ors

Citation: CWJC No. 21787 of 2011

Coram: Justice Rajiv Roy

Decided On: 09-10-2023

Introduction:

The appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of his contentions on the basis of the 6th Pay Revision Commission by the impugned judgment.

Facts:

It was claimed by the appellant that he was continuing as a Junior Selection Grade Typist/ Head Typist receiving a scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600 which scale was revised to Rs 5000-8000 by the 6th Pay Revision Commission report. The petitioner claims that the revision was once granted but later withdrawn along with arrears on accordance with the same to be paid from the date of pay revision.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

The court found that the petitioner is not a Head Typist and the pay revisions in the State Government would not apply to the Bihar, Industrial Area Development Authority unless a decision is taken by the authority to implement the same. The pay revision as applicable to the employees of the BIADA was as per the post in which they were continuing. The mere fact that the State Government had accepted the 6th Pay Revision Commission report would not make it automatically applicable to the employees of the BIADA. As for the arrears, the revision petitions were dismissed.

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view judgement