CHANDAR SINGH Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner at the outset has drawn the attention of this court towards the order dated 18-05-2012 passed in identical cases. This court in the case of Kumersingh Rajput Vs. State of M.P. and others in Writ petition No. 4831/2012 has passed the following order :- "4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/State submits that the petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner in all the petitions are in 6 employment of Cooperative Societies and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under the provisions of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 under Section 55(2) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act. It is submitted that only on this ground the petitions deserve to be dismissed and the same be dismissed. 5. From perusal of the order impugned herein it is evident that the order of termination has been issued by respondent No.5 on the instance of respondent No.3. It is true that the remedy is available to the petitioner under the provisions of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, but the remedy has to be availed before the Registrar, while the impugned orders have been issued on the instance of Registrar, therefore, it can safely be said that the remedy available to the petitioner in all the petitions is not alternative remedy. 6. Prima facie it appears that while instructing to respondent No.5 to discontinue the services of the petitioner in all the petitions, respondent No.3 has not made any enquiry in each of the cases that how the appointment of the petitioner is all the petitions is illegal. It also appears that before passing the order, respondent No.5 was not given any opportunity of hearing. In some of the cases respondent No.3 has approved the appointment of the petitioner made by respondent No.5. It is alleged that the respondent No.3 was also member of the appointing committee. 7 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case petitions filed by the petitioner are disposed of with a directions upon production of copy of the order passed by this Court by the petitioner in all the petitions, the respondent No.5 shall submit a detailed representation before respondent No.3 explaining that how the appointment of the petitioner in all the petitions is legal and valid. If such a representation is filed by the respondent No.5, then the respondent No.3 after giving an opportunity of hearing the respondent No.5 shall pass a speaking order. Upon furnishing copy of the order passed by this Court today, the order of termination issued by respondent No.5 shall remain in abeyance till final orders are being passed by the respondent Nos.

(2.) AND 3. 8. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. Copy of the order be placed in the record of connected petitions." Learned counsel for the State Government as well as learned counsel for the respondent Bank on advance notice have fairly stated before this court that the present petition can be disposed of with a liberty to the respondent No.4 Society to prefer a representation before the Dy Registrar Co-operative Societies and the Dy Registrar Co-operative Societies after granting an 8 opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.4 Society shall pass a speaking order and until final orders are passed by the Respondents No.2 and 3 the termination shall remain in abeyance. Keeping in view the concession granted by the respondents, the present writ petition is disposed of in an identical terms. The order dated 18-05-2012 passed in the case of Kumersingh Rajput Vs. State of M.P. and others in Writ petition No. 4831/2012 shall be applicable mutatis- mutandis in the present case also. No order as to costs. Cc as per rules. ( S.C. SHARMA) JUDGE rashmi 9 WRIT PETITION NO. 5246/2012 22-06-2012 Mr V.P. Khar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to inform this court the statutory provision which does not permit the Public Service Commission to inform the marks obtained by the candidates. List the matter next week. ( S.C. SHARMA) JUDGE rashmi 10 WRIT PETITION NO. 5813/2012 22-06-2012 Mr M. Mansoori, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner before this court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order of the Collector of Stamps as well as the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 05-01-2012. Petitioner's contention is that the order was passed in the matter of payment of stamp duty by the Collector, Ujjain, without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It has further been stated that on 07-08-2007 Collector has directed issuance of notice. However, no notice of any kind was issued or 11 received by the petitioner, pursuant to the order dated 07-08-2007 and the Collector has thereafter passed the impugned order. It has further been stated that an appeal of the petitioner was dismissed as time barred and later on it was affirmed by the Board of Revenue. In the present case as the order passed by the Collector is an ex-parte order and a primafacie it appears that the petitioner was not heard, the operation of the impugned orders dated 27-11-2007, 01-06-2009 and 05-01-2012 are stayed, till the next date of hearing. Issue notice to the respondents, on payment of P.F within 7 days, failing which this writ petition shall stand dismissed, without reference to this Court. List the matter in the week commencing 13-08-2012. c.c. as per rules. ( S.C. SHARMA) JUDGE rashmi 12 WRIT PETITION NO. 1275/2012 22-06-2012 Mr M. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents, on payment of P.F within 7 days. Notice be made returnable within four weeks'. List the matter on 06-08-2012. ( S.C. SHARMA) JUDGE rashmi 13 14 WRIT PETITION NO. 5487/2012 21-06-2012 Ms Pushpa Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms Vinita Phaye, learned Government Advocate for the respondent State. The matter was earlier listed on 19-06-2012 and the petitioner has again obtained a court slip . In the present case, petitioner was sent on deputation on 29-01-2009 and at the relevant point of time, the tenure of deputation was of three years' only. Petitioner has certainly completed a tenure of three years'. This court is of the considered opinion that no case for grant of interim relief is made out in the matter and prayer for interim relief is rejected. No order as to costs. c.c. as per rules. ( S.C. SHARMA) JUDGE rashmi 15 WRIT PETITION NO. 5803/2012 21-06-2012 Mr A.K. Sethi, Sr. Counsel with Mr. R. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms Vinita Phaye, learned Government Advocate for the respondent State, on advance notice. The petitioner before this court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the transfer order dated 15-06-2012 (Annexure-P-1), by which the petitioner has been transferred from Tehsil Neemuch to Tehsil Rampura. 02. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a victim of frequent transfers and this is his fourth transfer for the period of last two years and, therefore, the transfer order is contrary to the Transfer policy issued by the State Government. Petitioner has raised other grounds also.

(3.) RESULTANTLY, without averting to the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.3 Collector, District Neemuch to pass an appropriate order in respect of the petitioner's representation, keeping in view the various grounds raised by the petitioner as well as the Transfer Policy issued by the State Government on the subject.