Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.22 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 3 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 32 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Chitrakoot Singh Substituted By Lrs ... vs State Of U.P.And Others. on 9 January, 2010
In rejoinder Sri R. K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate submits that till the provisions of Section 21-G of the Act, 1982 is declared, ultra vires, the benefit thereof cannot be denied to the petitioner and therefore, the judgment in the case of Sumitra Singh (supra) does not laid down the correct law.
State Of U.P.& Ors vs Ashok Kumar Srivastava & Anr on 21 August, 2013
14. Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 720, held that the thrust of the matter is how the seniority is to be determined in such circumstances. The seniority of a person is to be determined according to the seniority rule applicable on the date of appointment. It has also been observed that weightage in seniority cannot be given retrospective effect unless it is specifically provided in the rule in force at the material time.
Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And Two Ors on 1 July, 1985
The submission of Sri Ojha that the impugned order amounts to review of the order dated 14.11.2014 and therefore, it deserves to be quashed, does not merit consideration for the reason that the impugned order dated 18.07.2018 does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Further, I do not find the present case to be a fit case for exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Interference with the impugned order dated 18.07.2018 would result in revival of an illegal order. Illegality cannot be allowed to perpetuate. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for perpetuating illegality or to direct an authority to do a wrong consciously because he has earlier committed a wrong unconsciously. It was said by Lord Jackson in his dissenting opinion in Massachusetts Vs. United States, (1947) 333 U.S. 611 "I see no reason why I should be consciously wrong today because I was unconsciously wrong yesterday" which has been quoted with approval by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1985 SC 1585 (para 19).