Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing N.V. Subba Rao And Ors. vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh And ... on 21 June, 1966

Rajinder Mohan Sehgal And Ors. vs Dr. Y.S. Parmar And Ors. on 14 March, 1975

14. The petitioners rely on Dr. N.V. Subba Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1968 Andh Pra 98. In that case the residents of a locality challenged an order renewing a licence enabling the operation of a bone factory in the locality. It was alleged that the health of the residents was affected by the existence of the foul smell emanating from the bone factory Plainly, the residents had substantial interest in maintaining the writ petition.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Radhey Sham vs Delhi Administration, Delhi And Ors. on 10 September, 1969

(7) For disposal of this objection, I would like to recall the facts emerging out of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Delhi Development Authority as that affidavit appears to fairly disclose the position of the disputed area. Those are: that the said land has neither been shown in the Master Plan as children park nor has it been handed over to the Municipal Corporation for a children park; that the land has nto been declared as development area; that in spite of resolution dated March 26, 1958, the land could nto be handed over to Municipal Corporation of Delhi; that the land still belongs to the Central Government; that the land has nto been transferred to any other body or authority for being utilised for the general public; that the Land Use Plan of the Master Plan does nto show any children park in the area under reference which is classified as residential; and that no zonal development plan has been prepared. In that situation it cannto be said that the petitioner has any right of access over the area. Moreover the area cannto be treated as a place of public resort. As a matter of fact, Mr. Lekhi admitted that a part of mosque still stands on the land in question, but according to him it has been put up in the year 1968. The photographs referred to alreay show that a substantial part of the mosque still exists in spite of demolition. If the petitioner has no right of access over that land, the very foundation of his grievance disappears. Mr. Lekhi argued and took recourse to various decisions in support of his proposition that a ratepayer can competently petition to a court for redress of his grievance that the funds of the State are nto being utilised in accordance with law, and every rate-payer can ask for a direction to the State to conform to the laws. He relied on Calcutta Gas Company v. State of West Bengal (1), State of Punjab v. Suraj Parkash Kapur (2) The Municipal Corporation for the City of Bombay v. Govind Laxman Savant (3), Krishna Kali Mallik v. Babulal Shaw (4) N.V.Subba Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (5) and K.C.Pazhanimala v. State of Kerala (6).
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Radhey Sham vs Lieutenant Governor And Ors. on 3 April, 1970

(20) Equally apposite examples are the decisions in Dr. N. V. Subba Rao v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh , Krishna Kali Mallik v. Babulal Shaw and The Municipal Corporation for the City of Bombay v. Govind Laxman Savant (AIR 1949 Bombay 229) all relied upon by the petitioner, the first two of which were merely mentioned as relied on by the petitioner in the order dismissing the petition but were not considered further.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ram Chander Prasad Chaurasia vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 7 September, 1973

In the case of Dr. N. V. Subba Rao v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, (AIR 1968 Andh Pra 98) a learned Single Judge has gone to the extent of saying that where the order is totally without jurisdiction the court would entertain an application for writ even at the instance of a stranger. It is not necessary for me in the present case to go to that extent in order to be able to hold that the petitioner is entitled to maintain this application. I do not, therefore, find any substance in the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents.
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1