Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (2.96 seconds)G.Sundarrajan vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 May, 2013
195. As noticed above, learned counsel for the
petitioners has raised various issues pertaining to
security and safety of data and CIDR. Apprehensions
raised by the petitioners does not furnish any ground
to struck down the enactment or a legislative policy.
This Court in G. Sundarrajan Vs. Union of India and
Others. (2013) 6 SCC 620, had occasion to consider
India's National Policy and challenge to a Nuclear
Project, which was launched by the Government
upholding the legislative policy, the Court laid down
following in Paras 15 and 15.1:
“15. India's National Policy has been clearly
and unequivocally expressed by the
legislature in the Atomic Energy Act.
State Of U.P vs Hari Ram on 11 March, 2013
In Hari Ram [State of U.P. v. Hari Ram, (2013) 4 SCC
280 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 583] , the Court has held that
(SCC p. 293, para 18) in interpreting the provision creating
a legal fiction, the court is to ascertain for what purpose the
fiction is created and after ascertaining the same, the court
is to assume all those facts and consequences which are
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012 & connected matters Page 440 of 567
incidental or inevitable corollaries for giving effect to the
fiction.”
State Of Kerala & Ors vs President,Parent Teacher ... on 6 February, 2013
(4) In all modes of authentication, the Aadhaar number is
mandatory and is submitted along with the input
parameters specified in sub-regulation (1) above such that
authentication is always reduced to a 1:1 match.
(5) A requesting entity shall ensure that encryption of PID
Block takes place at the time of capture on the
authentication device as per the processes and
specifications laid down by the Authority.
State Of U.P. & Anr vs Zila Parishad Ghaziabad & Anr on 1 February, 2013
In Pith and Substance, the Aadhaar Act cannot be said to
be entrenching upon any law, which may be made by the
State under Item No.5 of List II. In this context,
reference is made to judgment of this Court in State of
Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Zila Parishad, Ghaziabad
and Another, (2013) 11 SCC 783. In the above case,
provisions of Article 243G came to be considered in
reference to public distribution orders issued by the
State Government in exercise of delegated powers under
207
Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The Central Government
in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Essential
Commodities Act, the Government of U.P. issued an order
dated 10.8.1999, conferring the power to allot and cancel
the fair price shops in rural areas, with certain
guidelines, on the Gram Panchayats. Subsequently, the
State Government withdrew that order and reinforced the
earlier policy dated 03.07.1990 under which the power was
vested with the District Magistrate or an authority
designated by him to allot or cancel the licenses for
Fair Price Shops. The Central Government, in exercise of
power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act,
issued an order dated 31.8.2001, wherein its powers were
delegated to State Government. State Government, in
pursuance thereof, issued an order designating the
officers of the District level, viz., District
Magistrate, SubDivisional Magistrate, District Supply
Officer to ensure the proper supply and distribution of
such commodities. Zila Parishad, Ghaziabad filed a Writ
Petition in the High Court challenging the Order dated
13.01.2000 by which the power was withdrawn from the Gram
208
Panchayats. The Writ Petition was allowed by the High
Court against which State of Uttar Pradesh filed an
appeal. The submission was raised before this Court on
behalf of the writ petitioner that denuding the power
from Panchayats will be against the constitutional
provision of Article 243G. Such argument on behalf of
petitioner has been noticed in Paragraph 14. This Court
after considering the provisions of Article 243G and
other relevant provisions has laid down in Paras 23 and
24:
“23. The High Court has considered the nature
of the aforesaid constitutional provision and
held as under: (Zila Panchayat case1, AWC pp.
398182, para 16)
“16. In our opinion, this provision
is only an enabling provision. It
enables the Legislature of a State
to endow the Panchayats with certain
powers. … Hence, the Legislature of
a State is not bound to endow the
Panchayats with the powers referred
to Article 243G, and it is in its
discretion to do so or not. At any
event there is no mention of the
public distribution system in
Article 243G of the Constitution.”
Thus, it is evident that the High Court has
taken a view that the provision of Article
243G is merely an enabling provision, and it
209
is not a source of legislation.
Section 406 in The Companies Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 2013
Thalappalam Service Co-Operative Bank ... vs Kerala State Co-Operative Rubber ... on 31 October, 2013
193 In Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v State of
Kerala329, this Court dealt with a conflict between the right to information
327 (2003) 4 SCC 399
328 Ibid, at page 472
329 (2013) 16 SCC 82
265
PART H
[(protected by Article 19(1)(a)] and the right to privacy (protected by Article
M Far Hotels Ltd vs State Of Kerala Rep. By The Secretary To on 20 December, 2013
In M.R.F. Ltd. v. State of Kerala, this Court held
that in examining the reasonableness of a statutory
provision one has to keep in mind the following factors:
1