Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 55 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikreta Sangh, ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal And Anr. on 13 April, 1981

Ambika Prasad Rajwade And Ors. vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. on 6 September, 2005

In this context he submitted that in M.P. Ration Vikreta Sangh Society v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), the Supreme Court has further held that there can be no quarrel with the principles laid down in the Airport Authority case AIR 1979 SC 1628 that if the governmental action disclosed arbitrariness, it would be liable to be invalidated as offending against Article 14 of the Constitution. He submitted that the provisions in Clause 9 of Order 2004 giving priority and making reservations in favour of the Women's Self-Help Groups, Forest Protection Committees, Co-operative Societies of ex-Servicemen are absolutely arbitrary and have no nexus whatsoever with the object sought to be achieved by Section 3 of the Act as well as the Order 2004. Mr. Tiwari also referred to the provisions of Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to show that only LAMPS and Consumer Co-operatives are authorized to sell essential commodities in fair price shops and that the Primary Credit Co-operative Societies are not authorized under the provisions of the said Act to sell essential commodities at fair prices.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

Raghuveer Singh Gond vs Union Of India And Others on 6 September, 2005

In this context he submitted that in M.P. Ration Vikreta Sangh Society and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (supra) the Supreme Court has further held that there can be no quarrel with the principles laid down in the Airport Authority case (AIR 1979 SC 1628) that if the governmental action disclosed arbitrariness, it would be liable to be invalidated as offending against Article 14 of the Constitution. He submitted that the provisions in Clause 9 of Order 2004 giving priority and making reservations in favour of the Women's Self Help Groups, Forest Protection Committees, Co-operative Societies of ex-servicemen are absolutely arbitrary and have no nexus whatsoever with the object sought to be achieved by Section 3 of the Act as well as the Order 2004. Mr. Tiwari also referred to the provisions of Chhattisgarh Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 to show that only LAMPS and consumer Co-operatives are authorized to sell essential commodities in fair price shops and that the Primary Credit Co-operative Societies are not authorized under the provisions of the said Act to sell essential commodities at fair prices.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 6 - S K Sinha - Full Document

Darwari Lal Gyaprasad Dubey And Anr. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 July, 1994

xxx xxx xxx On behalf of the State, it was contended that the Scheme was framed in exercise of the powers delegated to the State Government under Section 5 of the Act read with Clause 2(d) of the 'Order'. The submission cannot be accepted. The validity of the 'Scheme' was considered in Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikreta Sangh, Jabalpur and Ors. v. State of M. P. and another, 1981 MPLJ 528 = AIR 1981 M. P. 203. It was held that the scheme was not made in exercise of any power conferred by the 'Order'. Clause 2(d) of the 'Order' only defines the expression of "government Scheme". The definition itself postulates the 'Scheme' is one which is made in exercise of its executive power. The executive power of a State as provided in Article 162 of the Constitution extends to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws. The topic of distribution of foodstuffs is covered by Entry 33 in List III of the Seventh Schedule and so the executive power of the State extends to this topic. The Division Bench held that the Scheme was not made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Act and was made only in exercise of the executive power of the State.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shiv Kumar vs State Of M.P. on 20 May, 2005

It was also pointed out that the aforesaid decision was affirmed by the Apex Court in appeal in the case of M.P. Ration Vikreta Sangh Society v. State of M.P. . Similar view has been taken by this Court in the cases cited above. Therefore, when any scheme framed is covered under Section 3/5 of the Essential Commodities Act the case can be taken for its violation but if the scheme is not framed under the authority of the Act and it is only framed under the executive powers of the State Government, accused can not be prosecuted for the violation of executive orders of the State Government.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Darwari Lal Dubey vs State Of M.P. on 19 July, 1994

xxx xxx xxx On behalf of the State, it was contended that the Scheme was framed in exercise of the powers-delegated to the State Government Under Section 5 of the Act read with Clause 2(d) of the 'Order'. The submission cannot be accepted. The validity of the 'Scheme' was considered in Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikreta Sangh Jabalpur v. State of M. P. 1981 MPLJ 528 : AIR 1981 Madh Pra 203. It was held that the scheme was not made in exercise of any power conferred by the 'Order'. Clause 2(d) of the 'Order' only defines the expression of "Government Scheme". The definition itself postulates the 'Scheme' is one which is made in exercise of its executive power. The executive power of a State as provided in Article 162 of the Constitution extends to the matters with respect to which the Legislature of the State has power to make laws. The topic of distribution of foodstuffs is covered by Entry 33 in List III of the Seventh Schedule and so the executive power of the State extends to this topic. The Division Bench held that the Scheme was not made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 read with Section 5 of the Act and was made only in exercise of the executive power of the State.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arvind Kumar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 February, 2008

It was also pointed out that the aforesaid decision was affirmed by the Apex Court in appeal in the case of M.P. Ration Vikreta Sangh Society v. State of M.P. AIR 1981 SC 2001. Similar view has been taken by this Court in the cases cited above. Therefore, when any scheme framed is covered under Section 3/5 of the Essential Commodities Act the case can be taken for its violation but if the scheme is not framed under the authority of the Act and it is only framed under the executive powers of the State Government, accused cannot be prosecuted for the violation of executive orders of the State Government.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S C Sinho - Full Document

Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 22 August, 1994

15. The I.T.C. case (supra) was followed in Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Company v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gondia and another, 1991 Mh.L.J. 1140 and by this court in M. P. Tambaku Vikreta Sangh v. State of M.P., M. P. No. 3152/86 which has already been referred earlier, and the learned Judges rejected the argument for the Market Committee stating that once the Centre takes over an industry under Entry 52 of List I and passes an Act to regulate the industry, the State Legislature ceases to have any jurisdiction to legislate in that field and if it does so, that legislation would be ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - U Bhat - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next