Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Act 1966
Section 28 in The Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Balco Employees Union (Regd.) vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 December, 2001
(d) Learned advocate for the Appellant - State has also relied
upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balco
Employees Union versus Union of India, reported in 2002 (2)
SCC 333, in which, the Court held as under :-
Section 3 in Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Act 1966 [Entire Act]
Section 59 in Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Act 1966 [Entire Act]
State Of Orissa & Ors vs Gopinath Dash & Ors on 9 December, 2005
"15. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is
now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate
Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and
appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts Advisors to the
executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to
formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy
of the government is to check whether it violates the
fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the
provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory
provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with
policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the
ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available.
Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the
policy, is the subject of judicial review [vide 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]."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs State Of A.P.& Ors on 29 March, 2006
"15. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is
now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate
Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and
appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts Advisors to the
executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to
formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy
of the government is to check whether it violates the
fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the
provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory
provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with
policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the
ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available.
Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the
policy, is the subject of judicial review [vide 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]."