Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 1997

The State Of Karnataka vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2023

7. Validity of an order of sanction would depend upon application of mind on the part of the authority concerned and the material placed before it. All such material facts and material evidence must be considered by it. The sanctioning authority must apply its mind on such material facts and evidence collected during the investigation. Even such application of mind does not appear from the order of sanction, extrinsic evidence may be placed before the court in that behalf. While granting sanction, the authority cannot take into consideration an irrelevant fact nor can it pass an order on extraneous consideration not germane for passing a statutory order. It is also well settled that the superior courts cannot direct the sanctioning authority either to grant sanction or not to do so. The source of power of an authority passing an order of sanction must also be considered. (See Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [(1997) 7 SCC 622: 1997 SCC (L&S) 1784: 1997 SCC (Cri) 1120].) The authority concerned cannot also pass an order of sanction subject to ratification of a higher authority.
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

The State Of Karnataka vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2023

7. Validity of an order of sanction would depend upon application of mind on the part of the authority concerned and the material placed before it. All such material facts and material evidence must be considered by it. The sanctioning authority must apply its mind on such material facts and evidence collected during the investigation. Even such application of mind does not appear from the order of sanction, extrinsic evidence may be placed before the court in that behalf. While granting sanction, the authority cannot take into consideration an irrelevant fact nor can it pass an order on extraneous consideration not germane for passing a statutory order. It is also well settled that the superior courts cannot direct the sanctioning authority either to grant sanction or not to do so. The source of power of an authority passing an order of sanction must also be considered. (See Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [(1997) 7 SCC 622: 1997 SCC (L&S) 1784: 1997 SCC (Cri) 1120].) The authority concerned cannot also pass an order of sanction subject to ratification of a higher authority.
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sri B Dharamanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 April, 2026

NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR CBI Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Mansukhlal, Vithaldas Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat, Ameer Jan Vs State of Karnataka supra. The principles laid down in the said judgments regarding accused being entitled to raise the issue with regard to validity of the sanction even at the stage of appeal cannot be disputed. The further principle laid down in the said judgments with regard to requirement of application of mind by the sanctioning authority also cannot be disputed. The argument of learned Senior counsel for accused in the instant case with reference to the sanction order is with reference to the deposition of the PW7 found at paragraph 6 which read as under:
Karnataka High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - M G Kamal - Full Document

Channappa vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 21 August, 2019

In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622 it has been observed that mandamus is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution to compel for a public duty which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. Statutory duty may be either directory or mandatory. 'Shall' and 'must' sometimes be interpreted as 'may'. This Court has observed: (SCC pp. 632-33 & 634, paras 22, 23 & 29) "22. Mandamus which is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is requested to be issued, inter alia, to compel performance of public duties which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. Statutory duty may be either directory or mandatory. Statutory duties, if they are 12 intended to be mandatory in character, are indicated by the use of the words "shall" or "must". But this is not conclusive as "shall" and "must" have, sometimes, been interpreted as "may". What is determinative of the nature of duty, whether it is obligatory, mandatory or directory, is the scheme of the statute in which the "duty" has been set out. Even if the "duty" is not set out clearly and specifically in the statute, it may be implied as correlative to a "right".
Karnataka High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Anjinamma vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 22 August, 2019

In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622 it has been observed that mandamus is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution to compel for a public duty which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. Statutory duty may be either directory or mandatory. 'Shall' and 'must' sometimes be interpreted as 'may'. This Court has observed: (SCC pp. 632-33 & 634, paras 22, 23 & 29) "22. Mandamus which is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is requested to be issued, inter alia, to compel performance of public duties 12 which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. Statutory duty may be either directory or mandatory. Statutory duties, if they are intended to be mandatory in character, are indicated by the use of the words "shall" or "must". But this is not conclusive as "shall" and "must" have, sometimes, been interpreted as "may". What is determinative of the nature of duty, whether it is obligatory, mandatory or directory, is the scheme of the statute in which the "duty" has been set out. Even if the "duty" is not set out clearly and specifically in the statute, it may be implied as correlative to a "right".
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Shreedhar Turamari vs The Vice Chancellor on 19 September, 2019

In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622 it has been observed that mandamus is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution to compel for a public duty which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. Statutory duty may be either directory or mandatory. 'Shall' and 'must' sometimes be interpreted as 'may'. This Court has observed: (SCC pp. 632-33 & 634, paras 22, 23 & 29) 8 "22. Mandamus which is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is requested to be issued, inter alia, to compel performance of public duties which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. Statutory duty may be either directory or mandatory. Statutory duties, if they are intended to be mandatory in character, are indicated by the use of the words "shall" or "must". But this is not conclusive as "shall" and "must" have, sometimes, been interpreted as "may". What is determinative of the nature of duty, whether it is obligatory, mandatory or directory, is the scheme of the statute in which the "duty" has been set out. Even if the "duty" is not set out clearly and specifically in the statute, it may be implied as correlative to a "right".
Karnataka High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Dr D Sanna Durgappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2019

In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat it has been observed that mandamus is a discretionary under Article 226 of the Constitution to compel for a public duty which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. Statutory duty may be either directory or mandatory. "Shall" and "must" sometimes be interpreted as "may". This Court has observed: (SCC pp. 632-33 & 634, paras 22, 23 and 29) "22. Mandamus which is a discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution is requested to be issued, inter alia, to compel performance of public duties which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature. Statutory duty may be either directory or mandatory. Statutory duties, if they are intended to be mandatory in character are indicated by the use of the words "shall" or "must". But this is not conclusive as "shall" and "must" have sometimes, been interpreted as "may". But this is not conclusive as "shall"
Karnataka High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next