Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.64 seconds)Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 11 November, 1974
"15. The decisions in Erusian Equipments and Chemicals
Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, and Raghunath Thakur v. State of
Bihar, as well as later decisions have now clarified that before
any executive decision maker proposes a drastic adverse action,
such as a debarring or blacklisting order, it is necessary that
opportunity of hearing and representation against the proposed
action is given to the party likely to be affected.
Radha Krishna Agrawal And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 8 January, 1976
Reliance in this connection may be placed on the observations
of this Court in Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar. ... In
case any right conferred on the citizens which is sought to be
interfered, such action is subject to Article 14 of the
Constitution, and must be reasonable and can be taken only
upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest. Where
there is arbitrariness in State action of this type of entering or
-5-
not entering into contracts, Article 14 springs up and judicial
review strikes such an action down. Every action of the State
executive authority must be subject to rule of law and must be
informed by reason. So, whatever be the activity of the public
authority, in such monopoly or semi-monopoly dealings, it
should meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. If a
governmental action even in the matters of entering or not
entering into contracts, fails to satisfy the test of
reasonableness, the same would be unreasonable. ... It appears
to us that rule of reason and rule against arbitrariness and
discrimination, rules of fair play and natural justice are part of
the rule of law applicable in situation or action by State
instrumentality in dealing with citizens in a situation like the
present one. Even though the rights of the citizens are in the
nature of contractual rights, the manner, the method and
motive of a decision of entering or not entering into a contract,
are subject to judicial review on the touchstone of relevance
and reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality and non-
discrimination in the type of the transactions and nature of the
dealing as in the present case."
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Southern Painters vs Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd on 10 September, 1993
12. On perusal of the impugned decision dated 18th January, 2018, it
appears that the order of blacklisting has been passed suo motu without
affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent-
RMC in its counter affidavit had tried to justify the said order but it has
failed to controvert the specific contention of the petitioner that the
impugned decision has been passed without serving any show cause
notice to it, as also the said decision has not been communicated to it.
It is a trite law that before passing the order of blacklisting, it is sine-
qua-non to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned
delinquent, so as to satisfy as to whether the alleged default is
intentional or has been caused under the situation beyond one's control.
E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973
19. Even the second facet of the scrutiny which the
blacklisting order must suffer is no longer res integra. The
decisions of this Court in Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of
Bihar; E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi; Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Dwarka
Das Marfatia and Sons v. Port of Bombay have ruled against
arbitrariness and discrimination in every matter that is subject
to judicial review before a writ court exercising powers under
Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution.
Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India on 25 January, 1978
19. Even the second facet of the scrutiny which the
blacklisting order must suffer is no longer res integra. The
decisions of this Court in Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of
Bihar; E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi; Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Dwarka
Das Marfatia and Sons v. Port of Bombay have ruled against
arbitrariness and discrimination in every matter that is subject
to judicial review before a writ court exercising powers under
Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution.
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
19. Even the second facet of the scrutiny which the
blacklisting order must suffer is no longer res integra. The
decisions of this Court in Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of
Bihar; E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi; Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Dwarka
Das Marfatia and Sons v. Port of Bombay have ruled against
arbitrariness and discrimination in every matter that is subject
to judicial review before a writ court exercising powers under
Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
19. Even the second facet of the scrutiny which the
blacklisting order must suffer is no longer res integra. The
decisions of this Court in Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of
Bihar; E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N.; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi; Ramana Dayaram
Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Dwarka
Das Marfatia and Sons v. Port of Bombay have ruled against
arbitrariness and discrimination in every matter that is subject
to judicial review before a writ court exercising powers under
Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution.