Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.22 seconds)
Documents citing Vikas Trivedi vs State Of U.P. And Others on 23 April, 2013

Anuj Kumar And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 28 February, 2023

28. The Full Bench in Vikas Trivedi (supra) having noted the above observations of the Division Bench has put a note of caution that all provisions of the statute are required to be complied with and there is no discretion in the authorities and they are not free to disregard the provisions of statute to carry out No-Confidence motion at their whims. The question before the Full Bench was, however, with regard to the mandatory or directory nature of the prescribed procedure, the requirement of giving notice by the Collector under Section 15(3) (ii) in the prescribed form as required by the rule.
Allahabad High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ghanshyam Singh vs State Of U.P. & 5 Others on 11 December, 2014

10. Sri Tripathi further reiterated the submissions advanced by Suresh Singh insofar as the two sets of affidavits aforementioned are concerned and contended that these affidavits did not in any manner invalidate the issuance of the impugned notice by the Collector, Saharanpur on 14.10.2014 and even otherwise, did not constitute any such material upon which the Collector was liable to undertake an inquiry. Sri Tripathi further submitted with reference to the Full Bench decision of this Court in Vikas Trivedi And Others Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2013 (8) ADJ 523(FB) to submit that the provisions of Section 15(3) were not mandatory and that the notice issued by the Collector on 14.10.2014 is not rendered illegal merely on account of the fact that the complete requisition along with disclosure of names of persons who had submitted the same did not accompany the notice of the Collector. Sri Tripathi, relying upon the verdict handed down by the Full Bench of this Court, submitted that the scope of enquiry by this Court in these matters would only be as to whether there has been substantial compliance with the provisions and therefore, contended that as long as substantial compliance has been established, the proceedings of 'no confidence' are not vitiated.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - D Maheshwari - Full Document

Awadhesh Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 12 April, 2017

Apart from this, the distinction between form and content being mandatory or directory has again been explained in the Full Bench decision of Vikas Trivedi (supra) which also relies on the earlier Full Bench decision of Sardar Gyan Singh (supra). Accordingly, the tendering of the notice, it's deliverance to the District Magistrate and the issuance of the notice for convening the meeting which are mandatory have all been complied with substantially on the facts of the present case as would be evident from the findings recorded by us here-in-after.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Harkauli - Full Document

Radicon Infrastructure And Housing ... vs Karan Dhyani on 26 July, 2019

Further, the Full Bench in Vikas Trivedi's case (supra) considered the aforesaid dictum and held that all provisions of the statute are required to be complied but the Court has to look into as to whether there is substantial compliance of the provision, meaning thereby, if there was substantial compliance the omission in regard to a mandatory provision shall not vitiate the action. Thus, the test of substantial compliance was applied.
Allahabad High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - R Roy - Full Document

Radicon Infrastructure And Housing ... vs Dhaneshwari Devi Dhyani on 26 July, 2019

Further, the Full Bench in Vikas Trivedi's case (supra) considered the aforesaid dictum and held that all provisions of the statute are required to be complied but the Court has to look into as to whether there is substantial compliance of the provision, meaning thereby, if there was substantial compliance the omission in regard to a mandatory provision shall not vitiate the action. Thus, the test of substantial compliance was applied.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - R Roy - Full Document

Sumitra Devi vs Special Judge / Addl Distt & Sess. Judge ... on 12 June, 2020

Reference may also be made to Paragraph 75 and 76 of the Full Bench Decision in the case of Vikas Trivedi and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (2013) 2 UPLBEC 1193 wherein reference has been made to Paragraph 5-052 of De-Smith on Judicial Review regarding mandatory and directory provision in a statute to the effect- all statutory requirements are prima facie mandatory. However, in some situations the violation of a provision will, in the context of the statute as a whole and the circumstances of the particular decision, not violate the objects and purpose of the statute. Condoning such a breach does not, however, render the statutory provision directory or discretionary. The breach of the particular provision is treated in the circumstances as not involving a breach of the statute taken as a whole i.e. its object etc. This of course is subject to what we have already held as to the mandatory character of Section 12-C(3).
Allahabad High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - R Roy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next