Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.29 seconds)
M/S.Anooradha Granites vs The District Collector on 2 September, 2014 cites

Union Of India And Another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana on 22 November, 2006

21. On the other hand, the judgment of the Apex Court, relied on by the learned Special Government Pleader, in Union of India and another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in 2006 (12) SCC 28, holding that the writ petition is not maintainable against a show-cause notice, squarely applies to the facts of these cases and the following passage in paragraph 14 of the said judgment is extracted in this regard :
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1144 - M Katju - Full Document

M/S. Siemens Ltd. ... Appellant vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. ... ... on 1 December, 2006

Further, paragraph 9 of the judgment in Siemens's case makes it clear that the writ court may not normally exercise jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show-cause. Therefore, there is a heavy burden placed on the writ petitioners to establish their case that the show-cause notices were issued without jurisdiction and the show-cause notices were issued with premeditation and no purpose would be served in participating in the enquiry. The petitioners miserably failed to discharge the burden. Hence, no interference at the show-cause notice stage is warranted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 260 - S B Sinha - Full Document

V.S.O.Balakrishnan vs The District Collector on 7 January, 2009

18.3. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court set aside the final orders passed by the authority. 18.4. In these writ petitions, show-cause notices were issued, inspection reports were furnished, the petitioners were asked to appear before the authority for personal hearing to give objections on the reports and the learned Special Government Pleader also made a statement before this Court that all reasonable opportunity would be given and relevant documents, if any, required by the petitioners would be furnished, if those documents are in the possession of the Department. The petitioners approached this Court at the stage of show-cause notice itself before passing the final orders by the respondent. Hence, I am of the view that the said judgment cannot be applied to these cases and it is premature to approach this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 9 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahma Datt Sharma And Anr on 25 February, 1987

?9. Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has been held by this Court in some decisions including State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma (1987) 2 SCC 179, Special Director V. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, (2004) 3 SCC 440, and Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle, viz. When a notice is issued with premeditation, a writ petition would be maintainable. In such an event, even if the court directs the statutory authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield any fruitful purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 967 - K N Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next