Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (1.63 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Silppi Constructions Contractors vs Union Of India on 21 June, 2019
In the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India
and Another, reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, the Supreme Court has held
that the Supreme Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters,
unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or malafides or bias or irrationality is
made out. The Supreme Court also stated that the Courts must realise their
limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can
cause and accordingly held that Courts should exercise a lot of restraint while
exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters.
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors on 19 December, 1975
In the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji
Bashir Ahmed & Others, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 671, and in the case of
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others,
reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Supreme Court has held that only a person
who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order
etc. in a court of law. There must be a judicial enforceable right for enforcement
Page No.# 14/16
and the existence of such a right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ
jurisdiction of the Court. It further held that a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory
or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been
a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. In the present case,
the petitioner has not been able to show that he has suffered or suffers from
any legal injury or there has been a breach of any statutory duty on the part of
the respondents. As such, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved
person having locus standi to file the present writ petition.
The Chief Commercial Manager, South ... vs G. Ratnam & Ors on 22 August, 2007
22. As can be seen from the judgments quoted above, a writ petition cannot
be filed to prevent possible competition by other retail outlets and to protect
private interest at the cost of public interest. Further, as has been held in Chief
Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (supra)
the criteria for conducting a feasibility study in terms of the letter dated
06.04.2011 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas cannot said to be enforceable in the court of law, as it has not been
issued on the basis of some statute or under some provision of the Constitution.
Ganesh Chandra Hazarika vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 29 July, 1980
In the case of Ganesh Chandra Hazarika vs. State of Assam and
Others, reported in 1980 SCC OnLine Gau 11, this Court was to decide the
legality of the order vacating the stay of the operation of the "No Objection
Certificate" issued in favour of the respondent no.6, for installation of a petrol
pump. The petitioner was aggrieved with the "No Objection Certificate" given to
the respondent no.6 for installing a petrol pump near the petitioner's petrol
pump. This Court on considering various judgments of the Supreme Court held
that the right to install of a petrol pump at the said road junction, in which the
petitioner had also installed a petrol pump, was as much as a fundamental right
of the respondent no.6 as that of the petitioner, who had installed his own
petrol pump. It further held that so long as the respondent no.6 exercised his
fundamental right without impairing the like fundamental right of the petitioner,
no injury could be said to have been caused to the petitioner, who had no locus
standi to challenge the order vacating the stay of the operation of the "No
Objection Certificate" issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sivasagar.
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 8 November, 2012
In the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji
Bashir Ahmed & Others, reported in (1976) 1 SCC 671, and in the case of
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Others,
reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, the Supreme Court has held that only a person
who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order
etc. in a court of law. There must be a judicial enforceable right for enforcement
Page No.# 14/16
and the existence of such a right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ
jurisdiction of the Court. It further held that a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory
or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been
a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. In the present case,
the petitioner has not been able to show that he has suffered or suffers from
any legal injury or there has been a breach of any statutory duty on the part of
the respondents. As such, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved
person having locus standi to file the present writ petition.
Central Coalfieds Limited vs Sll-Sml (Joint Venture Consortium) . on 17 August, 2016
In the case of Central Coalfields Limited & Another vs. SLL-SML
(Joint Venture Consortium) & Others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622, the
Supreme Court has held that the power of judicial review will not be permitted
to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest.
Vehicle Factory Mazdoor Union Jabalpur ... vs Union Of India on 23 September, 2020
21. The Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan Petroleum Dealers
Association through its Secretary, Jaipur vs. Union of India and others
by order dated 20-9-2011 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10441/2010 has
held as under:--
1