Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.62 seconds)Union Of India And Anr vs S.B. Vohra And Ors on 5 January, 2004
9.In Union of India and another Vs. S.B.Vohra and others reported in 2004
(1) CTC 217, the three Judges Bench of the Apex Court has held that the Writ of
Mandamus can be issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal right in
himself and against a person who has a legal duty to perform but has failed
and/or neglected to do so. The relevant passages of the judgment of the Apex
Court are as follows:
L. Boomiraja vs The District Collector on 28 April, 2005
In a recent judgment of
the First Bench of the Principal Seat of this Court presided over by Markandey
Katju, C.J., (as he then was) in L.Boomiraja Vs. The District Collector,
Dindigul District reported in 2005(3) L.W.91, it was held that when a statute
makes it clear that extension of lease is not permissible as it is seen under
the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules (1959), Rule 8(ii), it is
mandatory and peremptory in nature and no direction can be issued by the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the authorities
to act against the statutory provisions. The First Bench of this Court has also
held that it is well settled that the principle of equity can supplement to but
cannot supplant the statutory provisions and it is not safe to bend the arms of
law only for adjusting equity and the humanitarian consideration cannot be for
the purpose of supplanting the statutory provisions. The relevant passages of
the above judgment of this Court are as follows:
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1