Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.36 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Representation Of The People Act, 1950
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahma Datt Sharma And Anr on 25 February, 1987
[(1995) 8 SCC 331], Special
Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another
[AIR 2004 SC 1467], Ulagappa and others v. Divisional
Commissioner, Mysore and others [(2001) 10 SCC 639], State
of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma and another [AIR 1987 SC 943]
etc.
Article 286 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Special Director And Anr vs Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse And Anr on 9 January, 2004
[(1995) 8 SCC 331], Special
Director and another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another
[AIR 2004 SC 1467], Ulagappa and others v. Divisional
Commissioner, Mysore and others [(2001) 10 SCC 639], State
of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma and another [AIR 1987 SC 943]
etc.
Union Of India And Another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana on 22 November, 2006
16. To the same effect is another decision of the Supreme Court in
UNION OF INDIA v. KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA . Paras 12 to
16, which are relevant are extracted hereunder:
Kavalappara Kottarathil Kochuni And ... vs The State Of Madras And Others on 4 May, 1960
11. The decision of the Supreme in KAVALAPPARA KOTTARATHIL
KOCHUNNI's case (1 supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel
is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. It would be
noticed from the facts arising in the said decision that the then State
of Madras had enacted the Madras Act 32 of 1995 called the Madras
Marumakkathayam (Removal of Doubts) Act, 1955, which was notified
in Gazette on 19.10.1995. The validity of the said Act was in question
before the Supreme Court and one of the objections raised was the
maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that until the State
has taken or threatened to take any action under the impugned Act,
the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was not
maintainable. While dealing with the said issued, the Supreme Court
held at relevant portion of para 10, as under:
Additional Secretary To The Government ... vs Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia And Anr on 20 December, 1990
7. As we see it, the present case does not fall under any
of the aforesaid five exceptions for the Court to interfere.
It was contended that these exceptions are not
exhaustive. We are unable to agree with this submission.
Alka Subhash case shows that it is only in these five types
of instances that the Court may exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 at the pre-
execution stage. The appellant had sought to contend that
the order which was passed was vague, extraneous and
on irrelevant grounds but there is no material for making
such an averment for the simple reason that the order of
detention and the grounds on which the said order is
passed has not been placed on record inasmuch as the
order has not yet been executed. The appellant does not
have a copy on the same, and therefore, it is not open to
the appellant to contend that the non- existent order was
passed on vague, extraneous or on irrelevant grounds".
Sayed Taher Bawamiya vs Joint Secretary To The Govt. Of India And ... on 3 August, 2000
In Sayed Taher Bawamiya v. Jt. Secy. to the Govt. of India
[(2000) 8 SCC 630], it was observed by this Court as follows: