Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 47 (0.80 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 9 in The Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Nitin Baliram Deore And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 6 February, 2019
17. Thus, it can be seen that though proposals were approved
by the Education Officer, many of the employees started receiving
salary through grants, but they were not supplied with the copies of
the Shalarth IDs for the reasons stated above. During the pendency of
these petitions, there is recent judgment passed by the Principal Seat
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
127/140
in Hemant Baliram Deore and others v. The State of Maharashtra and
others (supra) and relied on by the learned counsel for the
petitioners. The facts involved in the said petition are identical to the
facts involved in the present petitions.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Nilesh Subhash Jawanjal And Others vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, ... on 14 September, 2017
Yasin and
others (supra). In the said matter, the Hon'ble Apex Court dealt with
the issue whether actions of a university, though not strictly a
government department can be challenged under writ jurisdiction.
The Court held that when a body like a university performs public
functions and exercises powers affecting rights (like employment or
academic decisions), its actions are subject to judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It emphasized that public
authorities must act fairly and not arbitrarily, and if their actions
violate principles of natural justice or are unreasonable, courts can
intervene. [
In the present matter, we do not see any opportunity was
granted to the petitioners-employees nor any show cause notice
specifically pointing out what fraud the petitioners-employees have
committed is issued. It is clear that no principles of natural justice
were followed.
M/S S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 17 March, 2004
11.6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.5 placed reliance
on S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others
(supra). In the said matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with
two main issues--suppression of facts in writ petitions and fairness in
State action. It held that merely not disclosing a fact (like filing a
prior civil suit) does not automatically kill a writ petition unless that
KHUNTE
WP-7441.25+25-J.odt
115/140
fact is material and affects the merits of the case. Since the suit had
already been withdrawn and the writ was otherwise maintainable, it
was held that the High Court was wrong to dismiss it only on that
ground. In fact, this judgment supports the contention of the
petitioners on merits, the Court found that the State Financial
Corporation had acted unfairly and in undue haste while selling the
appellant's property--giving almost no time for bids, conducting the
process suspiciously, and failing to ensure a fair price. The Court
emphasized that State authorities must act reasonably, transparently,
and in good faith, especially in public sales. Because the process was
clearly flawed, the sale was set aside.