Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.63 seconds)State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors on 18 January, 2010
14. Half a decade later, the Supreme Court in State of
Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, reported in
(2010) 3 SCC 402, directed the high courts to frame
appropriate rules for encouraging institution of genuine
'Public Interest Litigation' in view of the gross abuse of the
process of law by unscrupulous litigants. In paragraph 181 of
the decision, certain directions were given which read as
under:
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 8 November, 2012
15. Close on the heels of the aforesaid decision, the
Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v.
State of Maharashtra, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, had
the occasion to reiterate the law that a writ petition can be
instituted for enforcement of a legal right which must
ordinarily be the right of the writ petitioner himself; however,
it was also noted that the Court could exercise the writ
jurisdiction at the instance of a third party when such party
successfully establishes that a person or a determinate class
of persons is either threatened with or has sufered legal
wrong or legal injury or illegal burden and that such person
or determinate class of persons is, by reason of poverty,
helplessness, disability or socially or economically
disadvantaged position, unable to approach the Court for
relief. Since such third party can approach the Court by
12
PIL-92550.2020.doc
instituting a litigation in public interest and often such
litigation is ultimately not found to espouse a genuine cause,
the Court sounded caution in the following words :
Maharao Sahib Sri Bhim Singhji Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 1 July, 1985
19. Article 282 allows the Union to make grants on
subjects irrespective of whether they lie in the Seventh
Schedule, provided it is in public interest. The Supreme
Court in its decision in Bhim Singh v. Union of India &
Others, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 538, had the occasion to
consider a challenge to the constitutional validity of the
MPLAD Scheme. While repelling the challenge, the Supreme
Court had the occasion to consider the scope, efect and
import of Article 282 of the Constitution and expressed its
views in the following words: -
Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993
In the written notes of argument, the petitioner has
referred to the decisions in Associated Provincial Picture
House Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation, (King's
Bench Division), reported in [1948] 1 KB 223, Council of
Civil Services Union and Others v. Minister for the
Civil Services, (House of Lords), reported in 3 All ER 935,
Union of India and Others v. Hindustan Development
Corporation and Others, reported in (1993) 3 SCC 499,
Regina v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fishers & Food,
26
PIL-92550.2020.doc
[Before the High Court (QEueen's Bench Division)], reported in
(1995) 1 C.M.L.R. 533, Punjab Communication Ltd. V.
Union of India and Others, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 727
and Lok Prahari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,
reported in (2017) 1 SCC 244, without indicating the
particular paragraphs laying down the proposition of law on
which the petitioner seeks to rely. We have read the
decisions cited and have no reason to doubt the principles of
law based whereon the individual cases were decided.
However, we need not cite authorities for the proposition
that a decision is an authority for the point it decides and not
what can logically be deduced therefrom. We have assigned
our own independent reasons as to why the decision of the
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation has
appeared to us to be defensible.
Lok Prahari Through Its General ... vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 7 May, 2018
In the written notes of argument, the petitioner has
referred to the decisions in Associated Provincial Picture
House Limited v. Wednesbury Corporation, (King's
Bench Division), reported in [1948] 1 KB 223, Council of
Civil Services Union and Others v. Minister for the
Civil Services, (House of Lords), reported in 3 All ER 935,
Union of India and Others v. Hindustan Development
Corporation and Others, reported in (1993) 3 SCC 499,
Regina v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fishers & Food,
26
PIL-92550.2020.doc
[Before the High Court (QEueen's Bench Division)], reported in
(1995) 1 C.M.L.R. 533, Punjab Communication Ltd. V.
Union of India and Others, reported in (1999) 4 SCC 727
and Lok Prahari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,
reported in (2017) 1 SCC 244, without indicating the
particular paragraphs laying down the proposition of law on
which the petitioner seeks to rely. We have read the
decisions cited and have no reason to doubt the principles of
law based whereon the individual cases were decided.
However, we need not cite authorities for the proposition
that a decision is an authority for the point it decides and not
what can logically be deduced therefrom. We have assigned
our own independent reasons as to why the decision of the
Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation has
appeared to us to be defensible.
Gurpal Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 May, 2005
In Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in
(2005) 5 SCC 136, the Supreme Court employed very strong
words to deter misuse of the 'Public Interest Litigation'
jurisdiction by observing as follows: -
Section 21 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
1