Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.43 seconds)
Raghuveer Singh Gond vs Union Of India And Others on 6 September, 2005 cites

Ramanlal Nagardas And Ors. vs M.S. Palnitkar And Anr. on 8 November, 1960

The facts of the present case, therefore, are distinguishable from the facts of the aforesaid decision of the Gujrat High Court in Ramanlal Nagardas and Others Vs. M.S. Palnitkar & another (supra). The exclusion of private persons from running fair price shops in the facts of the present case has a rational nexus with the object of Section 3 (1) of the Act as well as the Order 2004 namely, the distribution of foodstuffs and other essential commodities in equitable manner at fair prices to ration card holders.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Madhya Pradesh Ration Vikreta Sangh, ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal And Anr. on 13 April, 1981

In this context he submitted that in M.P. Ration Vikreta Sangh Society and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (supra) the Supreme Court has further held that there can be no quarrel with the principles laid down in the Airport Authority case (AIR 1979 SC 1628) that if the governmental action disclosed arbitrariness, it would be liable to be invalidated as offending against Article 14 of the Constitution. He submitted that the provisions in Clause 9 of Order 2004 giving priority and making reservations in favour of the Women's Self Help Groups, Forest Protection Committees, Co-operative Societies of ex-servicemen are absolutely arbitrary and have no nexus whatsoever with the object sought to be achieved by Section 3 of the Act as well as the Order 2004. Mr. Tiwari also referred to the provisions of Chhattisgarh Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 to show that only LAMPS and consumer Co-operatives are authorized to sell essential commodities in fair price shops and that the Primary Credit Co-operative Societies are not authorized under the provisions of the said Act to sell essential commodities at fair prices.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 45 - Full Document

Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992

Even though employment under the fair price shops owned by private agencies and not State agencies may not be covered under Article 16 of the Constitution, any provision made by the State for employment of sales persons in fair price shops run by private or state agencies under the public distribution system of the State Government cannot be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. As has been held by Jeevan Reddy, J in the aforesaid judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India (supra) as a normal rule reservation in any employment should not exceed 50% but there may be population inhabiting far flung and remote areas which are out of the mainstream of national life and in view of the conditions peculiar to these areas there may be need for relaxation of the strict rule of 50% reservation in employment in these areas. Applying this test, more than 50% reservation for tribal communities for employment of sales persons in ITDP areas may be justified but 100% reservation in the matter of appointment of sales persons of fair price shops from tribal communities, we are afraid, will be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The provision in Sub clause (3)(c) or Clause 9 of the Order 2004 which provides for appointment of sales persons of fair price shops in ITDP areas from the BPL families of local tribal communities is therefore ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. Similarly, the provision in Sub clause (7) of Clause 9 of the Order 2004 that the sales persons in fair price shops in other areas will be appointed on the basis of priority only from amongst scheduled caste and other backward caste is a provision of 100% reservation for scheduled caste and other backward caste and is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. But the provisions for reservation in favour of the women upto 33% in the matter of appointment of sales persons of fair price shops cannot be held to be ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution. Similarly, the provision of 10% reservation for disabled persons for employment in fair price shops in sub clause (7) of Clause 9 of the Order 2004 cannot be held to be ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 136 - Cited by 1429 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next