Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)
Shri Dinesh Kumar Goyal vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 3 October, 2024 cites

Small Scale Industrial Manufactures ... vs Union Of India on 23 March, 2021

"......It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Small Scale Industrial Manufacturer Association versus Union of India reported in (2021) 8 SCC 511 that Court would not interfere with any opinion formed by the Government on the relevant facts or circumstances or based on expert advice. It has been held that when the Government forms it policy, it is based on a number of circumstances which must not be interfered with except for the ground of palpable arbitrariness. It is submitted that the policy decision relied upon by the respondents clearly indicates that there is no restriction in respect of plot of land measuring over 4 Cottahs in Sector-I of Salt Lake Township empowering the respondents to call for an affidavit from the petitioner to the extent of declaring that he or his family members do not have any plot of land in the KMDA area or Urban Agglomeration under the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, Bidhannagar area and as such the respondent authorities acted arbitrarily and without any jurisdiction in not mutating the name of the petitioner for non submission of such affidavit despite mutation be granted by the competent authority........."
Supreme Court of India Cites 70 - Cited by 49 - M R Shah - Full Document

Dinesh Kumar Goyal vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 10 March, 2016

v. The said application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, came up for hearing on 30th January, 2008 before His Lordship the Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Datta and His Lordship after hearing of the said writ application being W.P. No. 26181(W) of 2007, in the case of Shri Dinesh Kumar Goyal - vs - The State of West Bengal and Another was pleased to dispose of the said Writ Petition with a direction to the Principal Secretary, the respondent no. 2 therein to consider and dispose of the grievance expressed by the writ petitioner in the representation dated 9 th October, 2007, in accordance with the law within six weeks from the date of communication of the said order dated 30th January, 2008 upon granting reasonable opportunity of hearing both to the petitioner as well as other concerned parties. vi. Thereafter, by a letter dated 24th March, 2008 received from the respondent no.2, a hearing was fixed on 3rd March, 2008 at 5 p.m. In the course of hearing the respondent no.2 refused to accept the locus standi of the petitioner as to the ownership of the said leasehold land in respect of claim for mutation.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - J Bagchi - Full Document
1