Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing Jayendrasingh Anirudhsingh Jadeja vs Gujarat State Machine Tools ... on 7 April, 2000

Bharat Sudambhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 6 November, 2020

29.15 In the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma (supra), the Apex Court referred to the judgment in the case of Anirudhusinhji Jadeja (supra), wherein it has been held that a statutory authority vested with jurisdiction must exercise it according to its own discretion; discretion exercised under the directions or instruction of some higher authority is failure to exercise discretion altogether. Executive Officers may in exercise of their statutory discretions take into account considerations of public policy and in some context policy of a minister or the government as a whole when it is relevant, being a relevant factor in weighing the policy, but they are not absolved from their duty to exercise their personal judgment in individual cases, unless explicit statutory provision has been made for instructions by a superior to bind them. Relevant extracts of paragraphs 15 and 16 read thus:
Gujarat High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 1 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Shree Kadod Dudh Utpadka Sahkari Mandli ... vs State Of Gujarat on 6 November, 2020

29.15 In the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma (supra), the Apex Court referred to the judgment in the case of Anirudhusinhji Jadeja (supra), wherein it has been held that a statutory authority vested with jurisdiction must exercise it according to its own discretion; discretion exercised under the directions or instruction of some higher authority is failure to exercise discretion altogether. Executive Officers may in exercise of their statutory discretions take into account considerations of public policy and in some context policy of a minister or the government as a whole when it is relevant, being a relevant factor in weighing the policy, but they are not absolved from their duty to exercise their personal judgment in individual cases, unless explicit statutory provision has been made for instructions by a superior to bind them. Relevant extracts of paragraphs 15 and 16 read thus:
Gujarat High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Dharmesh @ Nannu Nitinbhai Shah vs State Of Gujarat on 1 November, 2001

For that, learned Advocate Mr. Dave relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of ANIRUDHSINHJI KARANSINHJI JADEJA vs. STATE OF GUJARAT, reported in AIR 1995 SC 2390 and in the matter of RAMBHAI NATHABHAI GADHVI vs. STATE OF GUJARAT, reported in AIR 1997 SC 3475, where the Supreme Court quashed the whole proceedings under the TADA Act where no valid sanction was obtained by the prosecution and it was urged that therefore the proceedings are required to be quashed ab initio. On facts, it was urged that there is no prima facie case against the present petitioner. In fact, the present petitioner was arrested from Swaminarayan Temple at Sarangpur and police falsely involved the present petitioner stating that the petitioner was arrested at Ahmedabad near Sarangpur Circle. It was urged that the petitioner is not at all connected with the crime and he has been falsely implicated and there is no prima facie evidence against him to proceed for the charges levelled against him. It was urged that therefore the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the Application Exh. 3 for the discharge of the present petitioner for the offences charged against him is illegal, erroneous and incorrect and requires to be set aside, and the proceedings are required to be quashed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - J R Vora - Full Document

Bhavesh Arvindbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 16 July, 2002

9. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anirudhsinh Jadeja (supra) will have no application to the facts of this case, more particularly when the accused is charged with serious offences like Sections 153A, 295, 198 and 427 I. P. Code and Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act. If it was a simple case of mischief then perhaps this Court would have taken liberal view of the matter, but the alleged act of the petitioner accused was gruesome. Such acts spoiled the communal harmony prevailing between the communities. The situation would have been worsen if the other side reacted in the matter. These type of incidents are responsible for communal riots spread out in the State at a large scale which continued for months together. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that discretion should not be exercised in favour of such person. Court can consider the case of the accused who has assaulted the individual, but not of those accused who have indulged in this type of heinous act of bomb blasting on a pious religious place like mosque.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1