Future Gaming And Hotel Services Pvt. ... vs The State Of Arunachal Pradesh And 3 Ors on 17 February, 2021
In Purtabpore Co. Vs Cane Commissioner of Bihar (Supra) it was observed as
follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 206 (1.50 seconds)Nadippisai Pulavar vs Union Of India on 8 June, 2010
In fact, in the decision reported in (1969) 1 SCC 308 : AIR 1970 SC 1896 (The Purtabpore Co., Ltd., Vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the proceedings of the Cane Commissioner is undoubtedly a quasi judicial proceedings and it is obligatory on the authority to hear the persons concerned. It also held that in as much as the aggrieved party was not given an opportunity of hearing that would vitiate the order of the Cane Commissioner. That was also a case of bifurcation of cane areas from one mill to another mill and the grievance was expressed by the sugar mill whose cane area was diverted to some other sugar mill. What was stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision in regard to the proceedings of the Cane Commissioner who exercised his powers under Clause 6 of the Sugar Cane Control Order, mutatis mutandis apply to the order impugned in the writ petitions and applying the ratio laid down in the said decision, it will have to be held that the orders of the Cane Commissioner dated 04.12.1997 and 03.06.2008 are violative of the principles of Natural Justice and consequently the same were rightly set aside by the learned single Judge. The contention of the learned counsel for the mills to distinguish the said decision on the ground that the dispute in the said case was as between two mills cannot be accepted. The law laid down in the said decision is applicable to all situations where demarcation of sugarcane area is made. Therefore, applying the ratio of the said decision, it will have to be held that failure to give an opportunity of hearing to the sugarcane growers would render the impugned order invalid in law.
Sarita Sinha vs The State Of Bihar on 20 January, 2026
11. Since a Coordinate Bench of this Court has
already decided that an order issued at the diktat of superior
authority is a nullity and reliance in this connection has been
made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Purtabpore Co. Ltd vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar & Ors.,
reported in AIR 1970 SC 1896, therefore, I have no reason to
take a different view in this matter.
Sri Someshwara Farmers Co-Operative ... vs State Of Karnataka on 26 April, 2013
"26. The contention was raised before the High Court
that the Circular dated 29.5.2008 has been issued by the
authority having no competence, thus cannot be enforced. It
is a settled legal proposition that the authority which has been
conferred with the competence under the statute alone can pass the
order. No other person, even a superior authority, can interfere with
the functioning of the Statutory Authority. In a democratic set up like
ours, persons occupying key positions are not supposed to mortgage
their discretion, volition and decision making authority and be
prepared to give way to carry out command having no sanctity in
law. Thus, if any decision is taken by a statutory authority at the
behest or on suggestion of a person who has no statutory role to
play, the same would be patently illegal. (Vide: The Purtabpore
Co., Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar & Ors., AIR
1970 SC 1896; Chandrika Jha v. State of Bihar, AIR 1984
SC 322; Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001
SC 2524; and Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen, AIR 2010 SC 2210).
Yunus vs Special on 1 March, 2012
There is no dispute regarding the
fact that while deciding a revision application under any of the
above-quoted provisions of the Code, the Secretary is exercising
quasi-judicial powers. Whether the Additional Secretary (Appeals) is
acting as a quasi-judicial authority can be determined from the
tests laid down by the Supreme Court, as stated in The Purtabpore
Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar And Others (supra).
The Tata Power Company Limited vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... on 30 May, 2012
In the decision in The
Purtabpore Co. Ltd. vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar an Ors, 1969
(1) SCC 308, the facts were not absolutely different from the facts
of the present appeal. In the reported decision, the Chief Minister
directed the Cane Commissioner to divide a certain reserved area
into two portions and allot one portion to one of the Respondents.
The Cane Commissioner, though he was statutory authority
obliged the Chief Minister, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that unless explicit statutory provision is found giving
authority to a statutory functionary to be guided by instructions
issued from a superior authority, a statutory authority is not
absolved of acting statutorily.
C/M Sri Durga Ji Purva Madhyamik Balika ... vs State Of U P And 4 Others on 14 October, 2020
In Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commr. of Bihar [(1969) 1 SCC 308 : AIR 1970 SC 1896] this Court has observed: (SCC p. 315, paras 11-12)
"11. ... The power exercisable by the Cane Commissioner under Clause 6(1) is a statutory power. He alone could have exercised that power. While exercising that power he cannot abdicate his responsibility in favour of anyone--not even in favour of the State Government or the Chief Minister. It was not proper for the Chief Minister to have interfered with the functions of the Cane Commissioner. In this case what has happened is that the power of the Cane Commissioner has been exercised by the Chief Minister, an authority not recognised by Clause 6 read with Clause 11 but the responsibility for making those orders was asked to be taken by the Cane Commissioner.
Senthilkumar. R vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 February, 2023
217.The learned Senior Counsel then relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in MANU/SC/0016/1968 : 1969 1 SCC
308, The Purtabpore Co., Ltd., Vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and Ors.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
149
The High Court in that case had held that the proceedings before the cane
growers was not a quasi-judicial proceedings. That finding was interfered
with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was reiterated that the crushing
capacity of the mill, the availability of sugarcane in the reserved area and
the need of production to sugarcane were the factors to be considered. These
were the very factors which had been considered by the Cane Commissioner
in the order impugned. I would therefore, uphold the order of the Cane
Commissioner.
Naveen Kumar vs Chief Secretary on 25 February, 2014
In the case of The Purtabpore Company Ltd. vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and others (supra), decided by the Apex Courts Division Bench consisting of JJ S.M. Sikri and K.S. Hedge, it was held that the impugned orders, though purported to have been made by the Cane Commissioner, were, in fact, made by the Chief Minister, when the parties had represented to the Chief Minister, and it was the Chief Minister who had directed the Cane Commissioner to divide the relevant area into two portions, and to allot one portion to 5th respondent of that case, and such orders were, therefore, invalid. It was held by the Honble Apex Court in the said judgment that the powers exercisable by the Cane Commissioner were Statutory powers, which could be exercised only by him, and the said power could not have been exercised by the Chief Minister, who was not an authority under clause 6 (1) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order 1966, read with clause 11 of the order, and, therefore, impugned orders were held ultra vires.
M/S Dwarka Prasad Agrawal & Brothers ... vs Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits & 3 ... on 21 January, 2014
In the aforesaid case, Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar, (1969) 1 SCC 308 case has been relied upon. The initial order passed in this case is per se illegal and has been obtained on the basis of fraud. Therefore, if the Registrar has proceeded to rectify the aforesaid mistake exercising power under Section 64 of the Act read with Rule 7 of the Rules, then the order is perfectly justified and valid in the eye of law and it does not require interference by this Court.