Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 61 (0.36 seconds)Smt. Gunwant Kaur And Ors. vs Municipal Committee, Bhatinda And Ors. on 4 December, 1969
In the above case of Gunwant
Kaur [Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee,
Bhatinda, (1969) 3 SCC 769] this Court even
went to the extent of holding that in a writ
petition, if the facts require, even oral evidence
can be taken. This clearly shows that in an
appropriate case, the writ court has the
jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition involving
disputed questions of fact and there is no
absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition even if
the same arises out of a contractual obligation
and/or involves some disputed questions of fact.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966
Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003
"38. Although ordinarily a superior court in
exercise of its writ jurisdiction would not enforce
the terms of a contract qua contract, it is trite that
when an action of the State is arbitrary or
discriminatory and, thus, violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India, a writ petition would be
maintainable. ( See ABL International Ltd. v.
Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.
[ (2004) 3 SCC 553.
Section 326 in The M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dir. Of Settlements, A.P. & Ors vs M.R. Apparao & Anr on 20 March, 2002
In Director of
Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao [Director of
Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638] .
Pattanaik, J. observed: (SCC p. 659, para 17).
Rules Under The Suits Valuation Act
State Of Orissa vs Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors on 7 February, 1967
"5. It la unnecessary to consider whether the order
of the Divisional Forest Officer is made on
"irrelevant grounds" because it is clear that before
passing the order the Divisional Forest Officer did
not call for any explanation of the respondent, and
gave him no hearing before passing the order. It is
averred in Paragraph-22(i) of the petition that the
"cancellation order is in violation of the principles of
natural justice having been done at a very late
stage without affording any opportunity to the
petitioner (respondent) to say anything against the
action canceling his tallies". To that averment, ho
reply was made by the forest authorities against
whom the petition was filed. Granting that the order
was administrative and not quasi-judicial, the order
had still to be made in a manner consonant with the
rules of natural justice when it affected the
respondent's rights to property. This Court in the
case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei
held in dealing with an administrative order that "the
rule that a party to whose prejudice the order is
55
W.P. No.7460/2020
intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing
applied alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of
persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon
matters involving civil consequences. It is one of
the fundamental rules of our Constitutional setup
that every citizen is protected against exercise of
arbitrary authority by the State or its officers". The
Divisional Forest Officer in the present case set
aside the proceeding of a subordinate authority and
passed an order which involved the respondent in
considerable loss. The order involved civil
consequences. Without considering whether the
order of the Divisional Forest Officer was vitiated
because of irrelevant considerations, the order
must be set aside on the simple ground that it was
passed contrary to the basic rules of natural
justice."