The Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the second bail application of man accused of poaching. The court looked into the facts and circumstances of the case, and contention of the learned counsel of the State, said it is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant, Dhyan Singh.
A division bench of Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Vishal Dhagat having heard the Counsel for the petitioner and on the perusal of the record noted that the initial date fixed for the CLAT Examination and submission of form for the same has been relaxed from time to time by the respondent.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding construction of boundary wall of Shriram Janki Temple at Bhitarwar in Gwalior, directing the petitioner to approach the Gwalior Collector for the same.
The Court declares the strike by the nurses in the State as illegal and condemns their action especially because such a call has been given at a time when the country has still not been able to come out of the ill effects of the second wave of COVID-19.
The petition filed in Madhya Pradesh claimed that a four percent reservation was to be given under the handicapped quota in Madhya Pradesh Civil Judge Examination 2019.
The counsel for the respondents contended that the detention order was passed after due application of mind and that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the petitioner was in custody and that provisions of Section 3(5) of the Act have been duly complied with.
The Public Interest Litigation in the Madhya Pradesh High Court has been filed with the prayer that the respondents be directed to stop illegal mining/ stone crushers without having any valid mining lease and without following the procedure prescribed under the M.P. Minor Mineral Rules, 1996.
In the Assistant Sub Inspector's petition challenging his transfer order, the Madhya Pradesh Court has observed that nothing has been pointed out to show that what was the ban period and why an employee who has still three years for retirement cannot be transferred.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court decision to find out if panel lawyers employed by central agencies and appearing before it had the requisite experience and vetted with courts is significant. The Court had frowned at appointing public prosecutors on contract basis earlier.
Reliance was made on the Judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat Vs. Ashwini Ray reported in 2017 (Vol 3) SCC 436, relevant extract of which reads-