Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Assam And Ors. vs Makhan Pegu And Ors. on 2 February, 2006

Sub- Divisional Welfare Boards For ... vs The State Of Assam & 7 Ors on 9 March, 2017

13. We shall now refer to the decisions cited by the learned Senior counsel for the State and examine whether the State gets any help from them. The cases of State of Assam vs. Makhan Pegu and Mahesh Doley vs. State of Assam were decided by another but same Division Bench of this Court. In these cases, the Government had constituted interim council by nominating Members under Section 80 of the Missing Autonomous Council Act, 1995 who were subsequently removed. Aggrieved, the nominated Members challenged their removal. The question therefore arose was Page 14 of 19 whether such nominated Members could be removed at the pleasure of the Government. Section 80 which was the foundation of decision is reproduced as under:
Gauhati High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - M Bhuyan - Full Document

Dimoria College Autonomous vs Prof Dr Krishna Gopal Bhattacharya on 7 January, 2026

13. In the instant case, apparently no such reason has been assigned for passing the interim order of stay. The requirement of prima-facie case, and the balance of convenience and irreparable loss has not been discussed. Even though, a prima-facie case appears to be made out in favour of the petitioner/opposite party No.1 herein on account of the impugned removal order being passed by the proforma opposite party No.3 without giving a notice or opportunity of being heard, which seems to be a requirement in respect of tenure post in view of the University Grants Commission (Conferment of Autonomous Status upon Colleges and Measures for Maintenance of Standards in Autonomous Colleges) Regulations, 2023, wherein at Regulation 12 the term of 5 years has been prescribed for the Governing body and the members, as observed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Makhan Pegu and Ors. (supra), so referred by Mr. Mahanta, yet, it appears that while the impugned order was passed on 20.06.2025, the petitioner has approached this Court on 19.08.2025, after two months and the interim order of stay was granted on 22.08.2025. Mr. Mahanta however, submits that the petitioner/opposite party No.1 herein has not been furnished with a copy of the said order and it was not even marked to him also and he had received it only Page No.# 11/13 through WhatsApp. Thus, there appears to be some explanation for such delay. But, existence of a prima-facie case alone is not sufficient to grant interim relief, unless existence of other two requirements, such as balance of convenience and irreparable loss are successfully demonstrated.
Gauhati High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1