Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 45 (1.31 seconds)
Documents citing Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr vs Medwin Educational Society And Ors on 11 November, 2003

Mrs.Bezawada Supriya, vs The Govt on 3 March, 2022

460) Undoubtedly, there are conflicting judgments on this issue regarding power to decide such issue of legislative competency to 174 (2003) 5 SCC 134 175 1963 Supp (1) SCR 912 176 AIR 1952 SC 252 CJ, MSM,J and DVSS,J W.P.Nos.13203 of 2020 & batch 276 introduce any bill proposing to shift, bifurcate, or trifurcate the capital, but in view of reservation of the right by the State to introduce the bill after due consultations in view of the law declared by the two Full Bench judgments of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in "Andhra Pradesh Power Diploma Engineers' Association vs. Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board", and "Government of A.P. v. Medwin Educational Society" (referred supra) including the judgment of the Privy Council in "Attorney-General of Hong Kong and Another v Rediffusion (Hong Kong) Ltd.," (referred supra), this Court is bound to decide such issue.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 254 - Cited by 0 - P K Mishra - Full Document

Su.Archana vs The Health Secretary on 13 December, 2018

21. A reading of the above paragraph clearly indicates that the second respondent is unaware of the responsibility cast upon the State Government, as per clause 11(d) of the essentiality certificate to give an undertaking that in case the founder of a medical college who seeks to establish the medical college, fails to create infrastructure as per the norms laid down by the MCI and in the event of stopping fresh admissions by the Central Government, the State Government shall be obligated to take over the responsibility of the students already admitted in the college, have been completely ignored.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document

M.Nivetha vs The Secretary To Government on 5 January, 2016

8. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and another vs. Medwin Educational Society and others, (2004) 1 SCC 86, referred to supra, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to permit the petitioners to approach the 1st respondent indicating their options to undergo CRRI training with the approved Colleges. The petitioners are at liberty to make such applications within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the same, the 1st respondent will have to inform the 3rd respondent about the Colleges in which the petitioners can be permitted to undergo CRRI training. Such a letter would have to be sent within a further period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the applications from the petitioners. On receipt of the said communication from the 1st respondent, the 3rd respondent shall issue appropriate temporary Registration Certificates to the petitioners within a period of two weeks thereafter. It is needless to state that after the petitioners complete the CRRI training as required by law, the 3rd respondent will have to issue Permanent Registration Certificate of MBBS Course.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Modern Dental College vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 May, 2016

22. It was observed in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. Medwin Educational Society & Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 86, that “keeping in view the practical difficulties faced by the Central Government or the statutory bodies like MCI or UGC, some power is sought to be delegated to the State so as to make the Parliamentary statute workable. Such ‘play in joint’ is also desirable having regard to the federal structure of our Constitution”.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 96 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Self-Financing Rural Engineering ... vs All India Council For Technical ... on 28 June, 2005

He also contends that the State Government had a positive role to play in the whole process, as has been held in Government of A.P. v. Medwin Educational Society, and Govt. of A.P. and Anr. v. J.B. Educational Society and Anr. (4 supra). We have also dealt with this contention and held that the State Government is bound to give its opinion in each case and the policy of banning establishment of new colleges was not within the power of the State Government. He also contended that the action of AICTE in overruling the recommendations of the State was ultra vires to Regulation 6(1)(d), which we have already referred hereinabove. It merely says that the recommendations of the State Government shall be taken into consideration. The State Government, in the present case, has already given N.O.Cs. at various points of time with respect to various colleges before issuing the impugned Memo banning establishment of new colleges. It has also come in the pleadings that a State team was invited to Delhi, it deliberated for two days with the Board and the Board took decision after knowing their views.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 46 - B Nazki - Full Document

Integrated Rural Health Women And Child ... vs Government Of A.P. And Ors. on 28 January, 2006

As there was no notification issued by the Government, the Society submitted an application on 27.5.2003 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department. There was no response to the application, but the petitioner learnt that the Government was considering an application filed by one Dr.V.R.K. Educational Society. The petitioner issued a notice on 25.1.2005 to the Government not to proceed in the matter in contravention of regulations of Medical Council of India and G.O. Ms. No. 250, dated 22.5.1992 and G.O. Ms. No. 128, dated 30.4.1998. The Government was also informed through the notice, about the judgment of Supreme Court in Government of A.P. v. Medwin Educational Society, No reply was given to the notice.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - B Nazki - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next