The Court held that the writ petition must be disposed of in similar terms to a previous order (C.W.J.C. No. 2747 of 2003) which set aside an impugned order concerning loan deductions, despite the petitioner's failure to deny allegations of forged documents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8345 of 2003 LAL MOHAR GIRI . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR . with CWJC No.8346 of 2003 ARBIND KUMAR SINGH . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR . -----------
The allegation in the impugned order that they had obtained loans in a fraudulent manner on the basis of forged and fabricated document has not been denied in the writ petition. The Court was therefore inclined to dismiss the writ application.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a similar order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2747 of 2003 in which noticing the undertaking for deduction of the loan amount directly from salary month to month, the impugned order of the present nature were set aside.
Judicial propriety demands that this writ petition be disposed off in similar terms as in C.W.J.C. No. 2747 of 2003.
P. Kumar
(Navin Sinha, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present writ petition should be disposed of in similar terms as C.W.J.C. No. 2747 of 2003 despite unaddressed allegations of fraud.
Whether the setting aside of an order regarding direct salary deduction for loans can be applied by analogy.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.W.J.C. No. 2747 of 2003Followed¶4
Lal Mohar Giri
Arbind Kumar Singh
The State of Bihar
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
