Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Punjab vs K.R. Erry & Anr on 21 September, 1972

Madan Gopal Agarwal vs District Magistrate, Allahabad And ... on 10 October, 1972

Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. It was held that it was for the Government to decide whether there existed a public purpose to justify the requisitioning of accommodation. In the last case, this Court held that the expression "public purpose" was wide enough to include a temporary as well,, as a durable purpose. Section 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 placed no limitation on the competent authority as to what kind of purpose would justify the exercise of power. Counsel for the appellant has relied on A, K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India(1), Daud Ahmad v. The District Magistrate, Allahabad and others(2) and State of Punjab v. K. R. Erry and Sobhag Rai Mehta(3). In A. K. Kraipak, certain Government employees of the State of Jammu and Kashmir felt aggrieved with the selection of persons for appointment to the Indian Forest Service. The selections were made solely on the basis of the record of officers. Their suitability was not decided by oral or written examination, nor were they interviewed. A. K. Kraipak contended before this Court that the selections were bad as they were made without following the principles of natural justice. The contrary argument was that-the principles of natural justice would not apply to the administrative act of selection of officers for appointment to the Indian Forest Service. Hegde, J. said that "the dividing line between an administrative power and a quasi-judicial power is quite thin and is being gradually obliterated." At pages 465 and 466 of the report, the learned Judge added : "With the increase of the power of the administrative bodies it has become necessary to provide guidelines for the just exercise of their power. To prevent the abuse of that power and to see that it does not become a new despotism, courts are gra- dually evolving the principles to be observed while exercising such powers. In matters like these, public good is not advanced by a rigid adherence to precedents. New problems call for new solutions." Assuming that the committee making selection of officers for appointment to the Indian Forest Service was exercising administrative power, the learned Judge said : "The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. (1) (1970) 1 S. C. R. 457.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 12 - S N Dwivedi - Full Document

Smt. Ahmadi Usman vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Education ... on 2 March, 2012

In State of West Bengal vs. Haresh C. Banerjee and others (2006) 7 SCC 651 the Supreme Court reiterated after following the judgments in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971) 2 SCC 330; State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry (1973) 1 SCC 120; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma (supra); and State of Maharashtra vs. M.H. Mazumdar (supra) in holding that the question of an order withholding or reducing pension being invalid and bad in law on a legally permissible ground is one thing but to hold such a rule to be ultra vires is another.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Ramashray Singh vs Dy. Director Of Education ... on 17 February, 2012

In State of West Bengal vs. Haresh C. Banerjee and others (2006) 7 SCC 651 the Supreme Court reiterated, after following the judgments in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971) 2 SCC 330; State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry (1973) 1 SCC 120; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma (supra); and State of Maharashtra vs. M.H. Mazumdar (supra) in holding that the question of an order withholding or reducing pension being invalid and bad in law on a legally permissible ground is one thing but to hold such a rule to be ultra vires is another.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Ram Babu Sahu vs State Of U.P. And Others on 10 February, 2012

In State of West Bengal vs. Haresh C. Banerjee and others (2006) 7 SCC 651 the Supreme Court reiterated after following the judgments in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar (1971) 2 SCC 330; State of Punjab v. K.R. Erry (1973) 1 SCC 120; State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma (supra); and State of Maharashtra vs. M.H. Mazumdar (supra) in holding that the question of an order withholding or reducing pension being invalid and bad in law on a legally permissible ground is one thing but to hold such a rule to be ultra vires is another.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Son Pal vs General Manager, Northern Railway, New ... on 12 February, 1973

In State of Punjab v. K. R. Erry, , a high-powered commission presided over by a High Court judge inquired into the faulty design and construction but without giving an opportunity to the respondent to explain why he should not be held blameworthy in that respect. The Supreme Court observed that:- "SHRIErry would be jusified in his contention that such a finding would have been appropriate only if his explanation had been obtained by Mr. Justice Dulat in the course of the enquiry or by the State Government before the cut was imposed".
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1