Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 169 (3.54 seconds)
Documents citing N.Kannadasan vs Ajoy Khose & Ors on 6 May, 2009

State vs H.E on 18 January, 2012

111. The constitutional framework in India guarantees rule of law to its citizens. The State is the custodian of law and is principally responsible for governing by rule of law. Democracy is a potent tool to exercise control over the governance, and it can be effective only when the citizens are empowered in expressing their views without fear and get inexpensive justice against the corrupt public functionaries. The facts of the case in hand demonstrates that for about more than two years from 25.11.2003 to 6.8.2006 no steps were taken by the Government for appointment of Lokayukta. On 7.8.2006 the Chief Minister himself proposed the name of a Former Chief Justice who could not be appointed. Thereafter, the Chief Minister called for a panel of three names from the Chief Justice so that a name for appointment as Lokayukta could be chosen. He chose the name of Justice (Retired) J.R.Vora. The Governor after taking legal opinion requested the Chief Justice to send one name, instead of a panel of names in view of decisions of the Apex Court in Ashish Handa and N. Kannadasan (supra). Justice (Retired) J.R.Vora had been appointed as Director Gujarat State Judicial Acadmey. Even then thrice the Chief Minister requested for recommending the name of Justice (Retired) J.R.Vora but the Chief Justice did not agree and recommended the name of Justice (Retired) R.A.Mehta. The objections of the Chief Minister were rejected by the Chief Justice and he exercised primacy of opinion which was binding. The primacy of opinion of the Chief Justice was not accepted by the Chief Minister by writing letters dated 18.8.2011 to the Chief Justice and the Governor. The letters dated 18.8.2011 were warning bells for our democratic system. The pranks of the Chief Minister who is the head of Council of Ministers demonstrates deconstruction of our democracy, and the questionable conduct of stonewalling the appointment of Justice (Retired) R.A.Mehta as Lokayukta threatened the rule of law. The refusal of the Chief Minister to perform its statutory or constitutional obligation, and the effort to metastasise the procedure for appointment of Lokayukta by issuing the Gujarat Lokayukta (Amendment) Ordinance, 2011, to amend the Act, were deprave and truculent actions. The aforesaid exceptional facts establish that deconstruction of democracy was at work. It was necessary to remove the aporia created by the action of the Chief Minister and a responsible constitutional decision was required to be taken by the Governor so that democracy may thrive. The concept of the Governor acting in his discretion or exercising independent judgment is not alien to the Constitution.
Gujarat High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - V M Sahai - Full Document

Abdul Sathar vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 26 June, 2019

In a decision reported in (2009) 7 SCC 1 (N.Kannadasan versus Ajoy Khose and others)', the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that- 'in order to give a complete and effective meaning to a statutory provision, some words can be read into; https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 485 some words can be subtracted. Provisions of a Statute can be read down to make it effective as to its purpose.'
Madras High Court Cites 234 - Cited by 0 - V Parthiban - Full Document

Shibpur Teachers' Association & Anr vs Bengal Engineering & Science ... on 22 July, 2010

(Emphasis supplied) Before entering into merits of this case, this court is to decide whether delay defeats equity where the writ prayed for is Quo Warranto. Indisputably, in this case the petitioners' association got registration after the appointment of the respondent no.6. Admittedly, none of the members of that association was a 10 person interested to the post under reference. As discussed hereinabove, writ of Quo Warranto can be issued against the appointment which is contrary to the statutory rules but is it is not the court to embark upon an investigation of its own to ascertain the qualification of the person concerned. Therefore, while examining the authority of a person to hold a public office, the court is not concerned with technical grounds for the purpose of preventing continuance of usurpation of office or perpetuation of illegality in an appropriate case. Reference may be made to the decision of N. Kannadasan V. Ajoy Khose, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 1 and the relevant portions of the above decision are quoted below:
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - D K Gupta - Full Document

Guddi Devi And 2 Others vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 24 January, 2019

74. In other words, the principle of purposive interpretation is to be applied to the explanation appended to Section 28(3) of the Act 1961. The Apex Court in the case of Kannadasan Vs. Ajoy Khose (Supra) has held that the Court may have to change the interpretive tool in the event it is necessary to give effective meaning to the Act. It would be highly unjust, totally unfair and highly inequitable to permit the respondent no. 3 to take undue advantage of the illegal impugned order on the ground that the notice delivered under Section 28(2) of the Act has been rendered infructuous due to expiry of 30 days from the date on which the notice under Section 28(2) of the Act was delivered to him.
Allahabad High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next