Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.31 seconds)Mising Autonomous Council Act, 1995
Krishna S/0 Bulaji Borate vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 23 January, 2001
8. This court further held that the doctrine of pleasure is duly incorporated and implicit in Section 80 as well as in proviso to it. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 2 SCC 441 the Division Bench took the view that once the doctrine of pleasure is applicable, neither the principles of natural justice would step in nor any question of giving an opportunity before removal would arise. It is also held that the pleasure of the Government is in no way controlled by any of the provisions under the statute with which we are concerned for the present. "There is nothing to suggest excluding from the operation of the absolute doctrine of pleasure. There is no restriction imposed upon the State Government in whatsoever manner and structuring the exercise of pleasure".
State Of Assam And Ors. vs Makhan Pegu And Ors. on 2 February, 2006
In our considered opinion, the subject-matter that arises for our-consideration in these appeals is not res integra but squarely covered by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this court in State of Assam and Ors. v. Makhan Pegu and Ors. (2006) 1 GLT 472. This court while interpreting Section 80 of the Act held as follows:
1