Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 566 (1.79 seconds)
Documents citing Gurpal Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 May, 2005

Professor K. B. Agarwal S/O Sh. C.L. ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 February, 2023

So far as bona fides of the petitioner is concerned, keeping in view the rule of caution laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Others (supra), we find that the petitioner served the Government of Rajasthan as Joint Director, College Education. He was Dean in Faculty of Law, University of Rajasthan. At the time of filing o the petition, the petitioner was Director of Indian Institute of Comparative Law. He is also Editor of Indian Social Legal Journal. He has been in service of legal education for about 50 years. The petitioner has clearly stated that he has no personal interest in the matter and being Professor in Law, he is concerned with the standards of legal education and he has filed this petition challenging appointment of Respondent No. 4 as the Vice-Chancellor of Respondent No.3-Law University though Respondent No. 4 is not equipped with any knowledge and experience in the field of legal education. In the return of the respondents also, it has come that the petitioner, in view of the provisions contained in the Act of 2019, cannot be an aspirant to apply for Vice-Chancellor of Respondent No.3-Law University. There is no other material placed on record by the respondents, nor emerging from the records which would lead us to draw an inference that the petitioner does not have the credentials and standing to challenge appointment of Respondent No. 4. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the petitioner himself served in the field of legal education for 50 years in various capacities as Joint Director, College (Downloaded on 25/02/2023 at 12:58:03 AM) [2022/RJJP/002783] (27 of 76) [CW-5789/2020] Education; Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Rajasthan; Director of Indian Institute of Comparative Law. He is Editor of Indian Social Legal Journal. He does not appear to have any personal much less any vested interest. Moreover, we find that the issue which has been raised by way of present PIL cannot be said to be a frivolous one intended only to misuse the judicial forum in the garb of PIL. The petitioner seeks to raise concern regarding appointment of a person with no background of legal education as Head of the Law University.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 110 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shaikh Mohammad Miran Mohammad Ibrahim vs State Of Maharashtra (Service Through ... on 31 January, 2008

5. Similar view was also taken by the another decision of this Court in PIL No. 14 of 2007 (Kandivli Education Society College and anr. V. Manoj J. Joshi and ors.) which reads thus The present litigation ex facie appears to be a private litigation in the garb of a Public Interest Litigation. The principles enunciated by the supreme Court in the cases of Kusum Lata v. Union of India and Ors. ; Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and ors. ; Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. and Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Ors. , are clear that where the private interest is more significant than a public interest or where the litigation is for an ulterior motive and is intended to settle personal vendetta rather than public good, the Court should essentially dismiss such writ petitions.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Pa (Chamber) Md. Kalim Ashraf & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 19 August, 2025

Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the courts should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as aforestated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the courts.' The same principles have been reiterated in the subsequent decisions, namely, B. Singh v. Union of India, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next