Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 156 (7.53 seconds)
Documents citing Centre For Public Interest Litigation vs U.O.I.& Ors on 8 April, 2016

Ultra Tech Cement Limited. vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others. on 18 May, 2017

Apparently, the State was disturbed over delay in the matter of settlement of rights for exploitation of minerals. It is to be remembered that a fair, transparent and equitable dispersal of mineral rights is certain to fetch the Government revenue, which is the most scarce resource for the Government to carry out its multifarious activities as a welfare State. An equitable and fair distribution of largesse is also important for the upkeep of the rule of law and to prevent monopolization, as also unethical, illegal and wrong practices in the garnering of rights over such important natural resources. All these aspects have been considered by the Constitution Bench in Natural Resources Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 1 and also in Centre for Public Interest Litigation & others vs. Union of India & others, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 1.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - A Singh - Full Document

Federation Of Noida Residents Welfare ... vs Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd. And ... on 26 October, 2016

On the above discussion made on each issue, we find that the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the Concessionaire in Soma Isolux NH One Tollway Private Limited Vs. Harish Kumar Puri & others, Villianur Iyarkkai Padukapu Maiyam, Pathan Mohammed Suleman Rehmatkhan Vs. State of Gujarat and Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India & others, Pathan Mohammad Suleman Rehmatkhan, Arun Kumar Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others and Centre of Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of India are distinguishable, in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 148 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anant Raj Ltd. ( Formerly Anant Raj ... vs The State Of Haryana on 27 October, 2021

23. Learned senior counsel further submits that the judgment in Centre for Public Litigation (supra) of this Court relied upon by the High Court has no application in the facts of the instant case for the reason that the case relied upon was related to a case where spectrum was recognised as a natural resource owned by the State and it was held by this Court that distribution of natural resource has to be in a fair and transparent manner and it is possible that policy of First Come First Serve basis may likely to be misused in case of alienation of public property. But in the instance case, it is a land of the owners/Appellants which they seek to develop. The grant of licence is not akin to distribution of natural resources of the State and further submitsthat in the given circumstances the interference which has been made by the High Court in cancellation of their grant of licence deserves to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Rastogi - Full Document

The Goa Foundation vs M/S Sesa Sterlite Ltd. And Ors. on 7 February, 2018

66. The issue was then considered from the standpoint of legitimate deviations from an auction. After adverting to several decisions of this Court 20 Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (CPIL case or 2G scam case) S.L.P. (C) No. 32138 of 2015 etc. Page 43 of 101 where auctions were not the favoured method of allocation of natural resources, it was held between paragraphs 129 and 131 of the Report as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 28 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Ravinder Singh Shekhawat vs Union Of India And Ors on 27 February, 2023

77. Hence, it emerges that this Court cannot bind the Government to its policy decision, if the same is changed due to overarching concerns of public interest. Furthermore, Courts are less likely to interfere when such concerns of public interest intersect with matters concerning national security (Refer to: Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2016) 6 SCC 408; Indian Rly.
Delhi High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - S C Sharma - Full Document

Sant Kumar Netam vs State Of Chhattisgarh 17 Wppil/28/2018 ... on 25 April, 2018

Invocation of public trust doctrine, fixation of upset price, corruption, etc., by learned counsel for the petitioners, on the strength of 40 judgments of the Supreme Court in Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal (supra), Narmada Bai (supra), Centre for Public Interest Litigation (2012) 3 SCC 1 (supra), Natural Resources Allocation (supra), Bhubaneswar Development Authority (supra) and Ram Kishun (supra), may not detain this Court for the reason that on comparison of rates of tendu patta for 2018 season in different tendu patta producing States, history of the rates in the State of Chhattisgarh for the last more than 10 years, the phenomenon of slump year and bumper year as has been considered in the preceding paragraphs has impressed us to hold that there is no, prima facie, evidence of illegal or arbitrary act based on corruption or nefarious design to benefit any particular tenderer. The public trust doctrine can be invoked only when there is proof of misuse of public funds or arbitrary disposal of State largesse on a throwaway price, which is not the case here.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

WP(C)/4242/2023 on 5 June, 2024

14. As per the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Centre for Public Interest Litigation & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), it clear that a "Public Prosecutor" in the designated Court can either be appointed by the Central Government or the State Government after following the procedures prescribed in sub-Sections 4 and 5 along with sub-Section 7 of Section 24 of Cr.P.C. or after following the procedures prescribed in sub-Section 6 read with Section 7 of Section 24 of Cr.P.C.
Gauhati High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S Shyam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next