Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.78 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Nandjee Singh vs P.G. Medical Studentsassociation And ... on 14 May, 1993

Arijit Dutta And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 May, 1994

In view of aforesaid fact, we do not entertain the allegations of the petitioners in respect of the process of admission to the said Sessions 1992-93 relying on the decision of the Apex court in the case of Dr. Nandjee Singh v. P.G. Medical Students Association and Ors. laying down that an individual dispute could not be converted into a public Interest Litigation.
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - M Sharma - Full Document

Dr. C.R. Rajagopalan vs The Director, The Nizams Institute Of ... on 6 September, 1996

10. From a reading of Section 15, it is clear that even if the fourth respondent is treated as an invitee, he is not entitled to participate in the deliberations and not entitled to vote. On the other hand, the respondents have categorically admitted that he participated in the deliberations and was a party to the resolution. Therefore, since the fourth respondent participated in the meeting of the Executive Board and was a party to the resolution proposing to appoint the fifth respondent as a Visiting Professor, the appointment of the fifth respondent is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Relying on Nandjee Singh v. P.G. Medical Students Association, the Counsel for the respondents contended that individual dispute cannot be converted into public interest litigation and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. The argument of learned Counsel cannot be sustained as it is the reputation and interest of the Institution that is at stake and therefore, any person who is interested in protecting the interest of the Institution is entitled to file the writ petition. It is the bounden duty of a citizen who is associated with the Institution to see that the Institution acts in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Lalitha Bai vs City Corporation Of Gulbarga And Ors. on 6 February, 1996

13. Point No. 3:- The petition averments show that the petitioner has approached the Court claiming tenancy interest in the property in Survey No. 21 in which a Iay-out is stated to have been formed by the first respondent and the open space is part of that lay out. When the respondents came out with the version of acquisition of Survey No. 21 as far back as 1964, the petitioner at the time of argument contended that she can challenge the sale deed as a person interested in exposing illegal sales by the first respondent-corporation. There is no averment in the petition giving any indication as to the public interest espoused by the petitioner. Even in the application for amendment of the petition filed as late as last week of January 1996, the petitioner has not averred anything about the public interest pursued by her. It is observed in Dr. NANDJEE SINGH v. P.G. MEDICAL STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION, that cases seeking to convert what is strictly an individual dispute into a public interest litigation should not be encouraged. This observation squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. The petitioner cannot at this stage be allowed to contend that she can maintain the petition as a public interest cause when she has given up her contention based oh occupancy rights claimed by her.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1