Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.14 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R.K. Garg Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 October, 1981
33. The theory of reasonableness has again been
expended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as,
::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2023 20:30:46 :::CIS
14
"R.K.Garg versus Union of India", reported in AIR 1981, SC
2138.
Ajay Hasia Etc vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc on 13 November, 1980
In Ajay Hasia & Ors. Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, this
Court said that the 'arbitrariness' test was lying "latent and
submerged" in the "simple but pregnant" form of Article 14 and
explained the switch from the 'classification' doctrine to the
'arbitrariness' doctrine in the following words: (SCC p. 741,
para 16)
"16...The doctrine of classification which is evolved by the
courts is not paraphrase of Article 14 nor is it the objective and
end of that article. It is merely a judicial formula for
determining whether the legislative or executive action in
question is arbitrary and therefore constituting denial of
::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2023 20:30:46 :::CIS
15
equality. If the classification is not reasonable and does not
satisfy the two conditions referred to above, the impugned
legislative or executive action would plainly be arbitrary and
the guarantee of equality under Article 14 would be breached.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
101. Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport
Authority of India explained the limitations of Article 14 on the
functioning of the Government as follows: (SCC p.506, para
M/S Sharma Transport Rep.By Shri ... vs Government Of A.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2001
103. As is evident from the above, the expressions
'arbitrariness' and 'unreasonableness' have been used
interchangeably and in fact, one has been defined in terms of
the other. More recently, in Sharma Transport Vs. Government
of A.P. & Ors.42 , this Court has observed thus: (SCC pp. 203
04, para25)
"25...In order to be described as arbitrary, it must be shown
that it was not reasonable and manifestly arbitrary. The
expression "arbitrarily" means: in an unreasonable manner, as
fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate
determining principle, not founded in the nature of things,
nonrational, not done or acting according to reason or
judgment, depending on the will alone."
Dwarka Nath vs Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle ... on 29 March, 1965
22. Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision in case titled as
'Dwarka Nath versus I.T.O. reported in AIR 1966 SC 81 (84),
has elaborately discussed the powers of High Courts under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relevant paras of
the judgment is reproduced as under:
Commissioner Of Customs, Kandla vs M/S Essar Oil Limited & Ors on 7 October, 2004
35. The word 'reasonableness' has been held to be a
question of fact, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
case titled as, "Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Vs.
Essar Oil Ltd. & others", reported in 2004(11) SCC 364.