Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 354 (2.17 seconds)
Documents citing Census Commissioner & Ors vs R.Krishamurthy on 7 November, 2014

Khemraj Tejaji Desai vs Gujarat Industrial Development ... on 16 December, 2022

We have referred to the said authority in Census Commr. case [Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 589] as the Court has clearly held that it neither legislates nor does it issue a mandamus to legislate. The relief in the present case, when appositely appreciated, tantamounts to a prayer for issue of a mandamus to take a step towards framing of a rule or a regulation for the purpose of reservation for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in matter of promotions. In our considered opinion, a writ of mandamus of such a nature cannot be issued."
Gujarat High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - B Vaishnav - Full Document

Farhan vs State & Anr on 11 May, 2022

194. The judgment rendered in Census Commissioner & Ors. v. R. Krishamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796, in my view, is also not applicable to the issue at hand. In this case, the court was called upon to consider whether the direction issued by the High Court to the Census Commissioner that census should be carried out in a manner that caste-wise enumeration and/or Signature valid Digitally Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI W.P.(C)No.284/2015 & connected matters Page 170 of 193 Signing Date:11.05.2022 18:29:14 tabulation get reflected in its report, was warranted, given the fact that no such direction had been issued by the Central Government under Section 8 of the Census Act, 1948 (as amended in 1993).
Delhi High Court Cites 355 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document

The State Of Punjab vs Anshika Goyal on 25 January, 2022

But the courts are not to plunge into policy-making by adding something to the policy by way of issuing a writ of mandamus.” We have referred to the said authority in Census Commr. case [Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 589] as the Court has clearly held that it neither legislates nor does it issue a mandamus to legislate. The relief in the present case, when appositely appreciated, tantamounts to a prayer for issue of a mandamus to take a step towards framing of a rule or a regulation for the purpose of reservation for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes in matter of promotions. In our considered opinion, a writ of mandamus of such a nature cannot be issued.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 9 - M R Shah - Full Document

M.P.Chothy vs State Of Kerala on 29 September, 2020

(R. Krishnamurthy case, SCC p. 809, para 33) "33. From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is clear as noonday that it is not within the domain of the courts to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether a better policy could be evolved. The court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious or not informed by reasons or totally arbitrary and founded ipse dixit offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. In certain matters, as often said, there can be opinions and opinions (sic) but the court is not expected to sit as an appellate authority on an opinion.
Kerala High Court Cites 145 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gurubasayya S/O Mahadevayya Pujera vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 2024

NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 "44. Recently, in Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy [Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 589], the Court, after referring to Premium Granites v. State of T.N. [Premium Granites v. State of T.N., (1994) 2 SCC 691], M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P. [M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P., (1997) 7 SCC 592], State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan [State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 875] and State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga [State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1021], held: (R. Krishnamurthy case [Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 589], SCC p. 809, para 33) "33. From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is clear as noonday that it is not within the domain of the courts to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether a better policy could be evolved. The court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious or not informed by reasons or totally arbitrary and founded ipse dixit offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. In certain matters, as often said, there can be opinions and opinions but the court is not expected to sit as an appellate authority on an opinion."
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P S Yerur - Full Document

Maruti S/O. Yamanappa Anni vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 2024

NC: 2024:KHC-D:17888 WP No. 106945 of 2024 C/W WP No. 106947 of 2024 & WP No.106948/2024 "44. Recently, in Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy [Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 589], the Court, after referring to Premium Granites v. State of T.N. [Premium Granites v. State of T.N., (1994) 2 SCC 691], M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P. [M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P., (1997) 7 SCC 592], State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan [State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 875] and State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga [State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1021], held: (R. Krishnamurthy case [Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 589], SCC p. 809, para 33) "33. From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is clear as noonday that it is not within the domain of the courts to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether a better policy could be evolved. The court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious or not informed by reasons or totally arbitrary and founded ipse dixit offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. In certain matters, as often said, there can be opinions and opinions but the court is not expected to sit as an appellate authority on an opinion."
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P S Yerur - Full Document

Nilesh Chhaburao Bhojane vs State Of Maharashtra Throu. Its Govt ... on 9 January, 2026

(2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 875] and State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga [State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1021], held: (R. Krishnamurthy case [Census Commr. v. R. Krishnamurthy, (2015) 2 SCC 796 : (2015) 1 SCC (L&S) 589], SCC p. 809, para 33) "33. From the aforesaid pronouncement of law, it is clear as noonday that it is not within the domain of the courts to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether a better policy could be evolved. The court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely capricious or not informed by reasons or totally arbitrary and founded ipse dixit offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution. In certain matters, as often said, there can be opinions and opinions but the court is not expected to sit as an appellate authority on an opinion."
Bombay High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Patel Naishadkumar Gopal Krushna vs Gujarat Public Service Commission & 117 on 16 August, 2016

Further reliance is also placed by the learned Advocate General on a decision in the case of Census Commissioner and others Vs. R. Krishnamurthy, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 796 (supra), in support of his argument that when conscious decision was taken to meet with the peculiar situation that has arisen in larger interest by way of policy which has resulted into amendment of rules, as such the same is not open to strict scrutiny by this Court, as much as no rights of the appellants are infringed. In para 33 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - R S Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next