Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji on 23 November, 1951
Para-9 of the Judgment passed in the case of Commissioner of Police,
Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji (supra), is relevant to be quoted hereunder:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.30 seconds)Rakesh Ranjan Verma And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Bihar And Ors. Etc. Etc on 10 April, 1992
In Rakesh Ranjan Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,
AIR 1992 SC 1348, the question arose as to whether the State
Government, in exercise of its statutory powers could issue any
direction to the Electricity Board in respect of appointment of its
officers and employees. After examining the statutory provisions,
the Court came to the conclusion that the State Government could
only take the policy decisions as how the Board will carry out its
functions under the Act. So far as the directions issued in respect of
appointment of its officers was concerned, it fell within the
exclusive domain of the Board and the State Government had no
competence to issue any such direction.
Bangalore Development Authority & ... vs R. Hanumaiah & Others on 3 October, 2005
In Bangalore Development Authority and Ors. Vs. R.
Hanumaiah and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 508, this Court held that the
power of the Government under Section 65 of the Bangalore
Development Authority Act, 1976 was not unrestricted and the
directions which could be issued were those which were to carry out
the objective of the Act and not those which are contrary to the Act
and further held that the directions issued by the Chief Minister to
release the lands were destructive of the purposes of the Act and the
purposes for which the BDA was created.
Bangalore Medical Trust vs B.S. Muddappa And Ors on 19 July, 1991
In Bangalore Medical Trust Vs. B.S. Muddappa & Ors. AIR
1991 SC 1902, this Court considered the provisions of a similar
Act, namely, Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976
containing a similar provision and held that Government was
competent only to give such directions to the authority as were in its
opinion necessary or expedient and for carrying out the purposes of
the Act. The Government could not have issued any other direction
for the reason that Government had not been conferred upon
unfettered powers in this regard. The object of the direction must be
only to carry out the object of the Act and only such directions as
were reasonably necessary or expedient for carrying out the object
7
of the enactment were contemplated under the Act. Any other
direction not covered by such powers was illegal.
Purtabpore Co. Ltd vs Cane Commissioner Of Bihar & Ors on 21 November, 1968
In Purtabpore Co., Ltd. Vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and
Ors. AIR 1970 SC 1896, this Court has observed :
Kumari Parul Awasthi vs The Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam & ... on 28 August, 2010
" The Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Awasthi
vs. U.P. Jal Nigam, reported in (2003) 11 SCC 740 clearly
held that the transfer of officers is required to be effected on
the basis of set norms or guideline and the power of
transferring the officer cannot be wielded arbitrarily and
maliciously with oblique motive. The Apex Court
emphasised that "for better administration the officers
concerned must have freedom from fear of being harassed
by repeated transfers. ... ..."
Union Of India And Ors vs S.L. Abbas on 27 April, 1993
In Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas reported in 1994(1) PLJR (SC) 1,
it has been held by the Apex Court that Court's power of interference in the
matter of transfer is extremely limited and normally the Court can interfere
only when such transfer is vitiated by non-compliance with the mandatory and
statutory provisions or where the exercise of power can be described as
malafide.
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
The aforesaid proposition has been followed in the case of Mohinder
Singh Gill (Supra). Para-8 of the said Judgment is relevant to be quoted
hereunder:
State Of U. P. & Ors vs Gobardhan Lal on 23 March, 2004
The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs.
Gobardhan Lal, reported in (2004) 11 SCC 402 has held that, "Transfer of an
employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also
implicit as an essential condition of service".
National Hydroelectric Power ... vs 1.Shri Bhagwan on 11 September, 2001
Further, in case of National Hydroelectric Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Shri
Bhagwan, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 574, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that, "it is by now well settled and often reiterated by this Court that no
government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any legal right to
be posted forever at any one particular place since transfer of a particular
employee appointed to the class or category of transferable posts from one
place to other is not only an incident, but a condition of service, necessary too
in public interest and efficiency in the public administration".