Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.22 seconds)Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Santosh Sood vs Gajendra Singh & Ors on 15 May, 2009
?6. ?12. Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with
great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful
to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private
malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. It is to be
used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social
justice to the citizens.? (B. Singh case reported in 2010 (3) SCC 402, SCC p.
372, para 12)?
Advocate General, State Of Bihar vs Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries Ltd on 5 March, 1980
''18. It is trite that save and except cogent reasons, the High Court,
in a public interest litigation, would not interfere with the due process of
law. If an abuse of process of court was undertaken by a party, some finding
of fact was required to be arrived at and even a proceeding under the
Contempt of Courts Act could have been initiated. (See Advocate General,
State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries, 1980 (3) SCC 311)
Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Commit. & ... vs C.K. Rajan & Others on 14 August, 2003
19. The parameters of a public interest litigation are well known in
view of a series of decisions of this Court. (See for example Guruvayoor
Devaswom Managing Committee v. C.K. Rajan 2003 (7) SCC 546)''
State Of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors on 18 January, 2010
(f) In State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, reported in
(2010) 3 SCC 402, it has been held as follows:-
Union Of India & Ors vs J.D.Suryavanshi on 5 September, 2011
(g) In Union of India v. J.D. Suryavanshi, reported in (2011) 13 SCC
167, it has been held as follows:-
Balco Employees Union (Regd.) vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 December, 2001
''7. In BALCO Employees? Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, 2002 (2) SCC
333 this Court held: (SCC p. 382, para 97)
?97. Judicial interference by way of PIL is available if there is injury to
public because of dereliction of constitutional or statutory obligations on
the part of the Government. Here it is not so and in the sphere of economic
policy or reform the court is not the appropriate forum. Every matter of
public interest or curiosity cannot be the subject-matter of PIL. Courts are
not intended to and nor should they conduct the administration of the
country. Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of
constitutional or statutory provisions or non-compliance by the State with
its constitutional or statutory duties. None of these contingencies arise in
this present case.?
P.Seshadri vs S.Mangati Gopal Reddy & Ors on 29 March, 2011
(h) In P.Seshadri vs. S.Mangati Gopal Reddy and others, reported in
2011 (5) SCC 484, it has been held as follows:-