Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.39 seconds)Section 5B in The Cinematograph Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Cinematograph Act, 1952
Section 9 in The Cinematograph Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Section 5A in The Cinematograph Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Cinematograph Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Cinematograph Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006
Asif Hameed v. State of J&K - 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364; Shri Sitaram Sugar
Co. Ltd., v. Union of India - 1990 (3) SCC 223; Khoday Distilleries v. State
of Karnataka - 1996 (10) SCC 304, Balco Employees Union v. Union of
India - 2002 (2) SCC 333), State of Orissa vs. Gopinath Dash - 2005 (13)
SCC 495 and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs. State of Andhra Pradesh -
2006 (4) SCC 162].
Chandigarh Administration vs Jagjit Singh on 10 January, 1995
20. When a grievance of discrimination is made, the High Court cannot
just examine whether someone similarly situated has been granted a relief or
benefit and then automatically direct grant of such relief or benefit to the
person aggrieved. The High Court has to first examine whether the petitioner
who has approached the court has established a right, entitling him to the
relief sought on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the context of
such examination, the fact that some others, who are similarly situated, have
been granted relief which the petitioner is seeking, may be of some
relevance. But where in law, a writ petitioner has not established a right or is
not entitled to relief, the fact that a similarly situated person has been
illegally granted relief, is not a ground to direct similar relief to him. That
would be enforcing a negative equality by perpetuation of an illegality which
is impermissible in law. The principle has been stated by this Court in
Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh [1995 (1) SCC 745] thus :