Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.34 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India And Another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana on 22 November, 2006
19.3. On the other hand, Mr.Issac Mohanlal, learned Senior
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 24/33
W.A.No.1831/2019 etc. batch
Counsel appearing for the Annamalai University, heavily relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India V. Kunisetty
Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, wherein, reiterating the well-
settled principle that ordinarily no writ lies against the show cause notice,
it has been observed as follows :
Union Of India And Anr vs Vicco Laboratories on 26 November, 2007
"31. Normally, the writ court should not interfere at the
stage of issuance of show-cause notice by the authorities. In such
a case, the parties get ample opportunity to put forth their
contentions before the authorities concerned and to satisfy the
authorities concerned about the absence of case for proceeding
against the person against whom the show-cause notices have
been issued. Abstinence from interference at the stage of
issuance of show-cause notice in order to relegate the parties to
the proceedings before the authorities concerned is the normal
rule. However, the said rule is not without exceptions. Where a
show-cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an
abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court
would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of
show-cause notice. The interference at the show-cause notice
stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion
by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or
abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie
established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be
necessary, interference is ruled out."
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahma Datt Sharma And Anr on 25 February, 1987
"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court
that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause
notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v.
Ramesh Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC 327, Special Director v.
Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440, Ulagappa v. Divisional
Commr., Mysore (2001) 10 SCC 639, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt
Sharma (1987) 2 SCC 179, etc.
The Special Director And Anr vs Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse And Anr on 9 January, 2004
"13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court
that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause
notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v.
Ramesh Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC 327, Special Director v.
Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440, Ulagappa v. Divisional
Commr., Mysore (2001) 10 SCC 639, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt
Sharma (1987) 2 SCC 179, etc.
Section 20 in Annamalai University Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in Annamalai University Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Maharashtra State Mining Corporation vs Sunil S/O Pundikaro Pathak on 24 April, 2006
In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. v. Sunil,
(2006) 5 SCC 96.
Chairman, Board Of Mining Examination ... vs Ramjee on 3 February, 1977
In this
regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines
v. Ramjee, (1977) 2 SCC 256, wherein, Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.R.Krishna
Iyer, speaking for the Bench, held as follows :