Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)Section 5 in The Lotteries (Regulation) Act, 1998 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
B.R. Enterprises Etc, Etc vs State Of U.P. And Grs. Etc: Etc on 7 May, 1999
7. Since we have held that the writ petition was not maintainable, it is not necessary for us to examine the other contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that the impugned notification dated 24-7-2004 is violative of Section 5 of the Act and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in B.R. Enterprises case. This contention deals with the merits of the case and we refrain from deciding the same.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc on 6 May, 1977
6. We may now refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Union of India, on which reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants to contend that the writ petition filed by them along with the State of Sikkim was maintainable. We have carefully gone through this judgment and find that it supports the view that we have taken. Their Lordships of the Apex Court have observed in paragraph 133 that there are two limitations in regard to the nature of the dispute which could be entertained by the Supreme Court. One is in regard to the parties and the other is in regard to the subject-matter. We have already found that the subject-matter of the dispute in the case before us is essentially the legal right of the State of Sikkim and that there is no involvement of any private party in the subject-matter of the lis and it was not necessary for the appellants to join the State of Sikkim as petitioners in the writ petition. It appears that the State of Sikkim joined its own agents and sub-agents only to take the case out of the purview of Article 131 of the Constitution which in our opinion is not permissible.
Government Of Meghalaya And Ors. vs Under Secretary To Government Of ... on 17 November, 2004
8. After arguments in this case had been heard and order reserved, Writ Appeal Nos. 29-31 of 2005 came to be filed by the State of Meghalaya along with its agents against the same judgment of the learned Single Judge by which their Writ Petition Nos. 31393 to 31395 of 2004 were dismissed (Government of Meghalaya and Ors. v. Under Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Department of Finance (Administration and Advances), Bangalore and Ors.). The only difference in the two writ appeals is that in the case of the State of Sikkim it did not file the appeal and the same was filed only by its agents/sub-agents whereas the State of Meghalaya itself has joined its agents/sub-agents in filing the writ appeal. This makes no difference. The question of maintainability involved in both the writ appeals is the same and for the reasons stated herein above these appeals are also not maintainable.
1