Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 701 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing Godde Venkateswara Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 1965

E.K.Sasi Aged 60 Years vs Thalayazham Service Co-Operative Bank ... on 3 January, 2013

"Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 828) for exercise of discretion, we hold that this is not a fit case for quashing Ext.P5 order of the Government even if it was without jurisdiction for, such quashing would restore Ext.P4 order of the Wakf Board which is bad for other reasons. This is therefore, not a fit case for exercising discretion to quash Ext.P5."
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A Dominic - Full Document

Sindhu Radhakrishnan vs The Government Of Kerala on 20 December, 2010

"Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 828) for exercise of discretion, we hold that this is not a fit case for quashing Ext.P5 order of the Government even if it was without jurisdiction for, such quashing would restore Ext.P4 order of the Wakf Board which is bad for other reasons. This is therefore, not a fit case for exercising discretion to quash Ext.P5."
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A Dominic - Full Document

Kalasagaram (Regd.) Secunderabad ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 30 December, 1997

On the other hand, the circumstances showed that the appellant was not in possession of the land. Another ground for dismissing the appellant's claim was that there was delay in approaching the Court. Though the learned single Judge held that the provision under Section 679A of the Act required that Government should before taking any action was bound to give an opportunity to the concerned authority or person and no such opportunity was given to the appellant in the instant case before issuance of the impugned memorandum, the memorandum need not be quashed because the quashing of the said memorandum would amount to reviving of the lease which itself was result of illegal exercise of power. The learned single Judge by relying upon the decision in Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P., , observed that issuing any writ would be improper if the result was to give effect to or to revive another order which is also illegal.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 3 - Cited by 11 - A S Bhate - Full Document

Tamil Nadu Highways Roadways ... vs Government Of Tamilnadu on 8 September, 2004

In the judgment reported in "AIR 1966 SC 828 (GADDE VENKATESWARA RAO versus GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS)", the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as a proposition of law that after setting aside an order of the Governor would result in restoration of an illegal order, the Court should not exercise its extraordinary discretionary power in such circumstances.
Madras High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 1 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document

Pratheesh Vaman vs Stateof Kerala on 4 April, 2012

"Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 828) for exercise of discretion, we hold that this is not a fit case for quashing Ext.P5 order of the Government even if it was without jurisdiction for, such quashing would restore Ext.P4 order of the Wakf Board which is bad for other reasons. This is therefore, not a fit case for exercising discretion to quash Ext.P5."
Kerala High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A Dominic - Full Document

Mohd. Nazim Khan vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Pashu ... on 3 December, 2014

In the above extracted portion of the judgment, it has been categorically held 'Similarly, if the quashing of the order which is in breach of natural justice is likely to result in revival of another order which is in itself illegal as in Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P. it is not necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of principles of natural justice'. When the said principle is applied to the present case and if plea of the petitioner is accepted resulting in quashing of Annexure-1, Annexure-3, would be revived. Consequently, this Court would be upholding action of the respondents in offering/appointing the petitioner on a post that is not in existence under the rules. The action of the respondents would be rendered in violation of the rules and regulations.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - A Lamba - Full Document

Mangat Rai Mitruka vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 9 March, 1981

Secondly the decisions of the Supreme Court in Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh read with the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Jagansingh v. S.T.A. Tribunal (F.B. clinches the issue so far as the principle that a writ should not be issued to perpetuate an illegality is concerned. Undoubtedly in the instant case if the impugned order is quashed it would result in perpetuating an illegality by restoring a patently illegal order. That being so, no interference can be made
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sri. U.V. Sridhar vs State Of Karnataka on 15 December, 2021

"14. It is a settled legal proposition that the court should not set aside the order which appears to be illegal, if its effect is to revive another illegal order. It is for the reason that in such an eventuality the illegality would perpetuate and it would put a premium to the undeserving party/person. (Vide Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1966 SC 828] , Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of Bihar [(1999) 8 SCC 16: AIR 1999 SC 3609], Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa v. State of Karnataka [(2000) 7 SCC 238: AIR 2000 SC 2976] Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2003) 6 SCC 545: 2003 SCC (L&S) 951 : AIR 2003 SC 2889] and State of Uttaranchal v. Ajit Singh Bhola [(2004) 6 SCC 800].)"
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sri N.C. Shivakumar vs State By Lokayuktha Police on 8 September, 2016

(See Godde Venkateswara Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh,, AIR 1966 SC 828, State of Bihar v. Yogendra Singh, AIR 1982 SC 882 and Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, AIR 1984 SC 1543). Therefore, the provisions of Section 19 of the Act will have an overriding effect over the general provisions contained in Section 190 or 319 Cr.PC. A Special Judge while trying an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot summon another person and proceed against him in the purported exercise of power under Section 31 CrPC if no sanction has been granted by the appropriate authority for prosecution of such a person as the existence of a sanction is sine qua non for taking cognizance of the offence qua that person.
Karnataka High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 0 - A Byrareddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next