Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (2.04 seconds)The Special Director And Anr vs Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse And Anr on 9 January, 2004
Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause
unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has
been held by this Court in some decisions including State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr. AIR 1987 SC 943, Special Director and
Another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and
Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCALE
262], but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle, viz,
when a notice is issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition would be
maintainable.
Union Of India And Another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana on 22 November, 2006
Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause
unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has
been held by this Court in some decisions including State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr. AIR 1987 SC 943, Special Director and
Another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and
Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCALE
262], but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle, viz,
when a notice is issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition would be
maintainable.
K.I. Shephard & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 September, 1987
In such an event, even if the courts directs the statutory
authority to hear the matter afresh, ordinarily such hearing would not yield
any fruitful purpose [See K.I. Shephard and Others v. Union of India and
Others (1987) 4 SCC 431 : AIR 1988 SC 686]. It is evident in the instant
case that the respondent has clearly made up its mind. It explicitly said so
both in the counter affidavit as also in its purported show cause.
V.C., Banaras Hindu University & Ors vs Shrikant on 12 May, 2006
The said principle has been followed by this Court in V.C. Banaras
Hindu University and Ors. v. Shrikant [2006 (6) SCALE 66], stating:
Shri Shekhar Ghosh vs Union Of India & Anr on 1 November, 2006
[See also Shri Shekhar Ghosh v. Union of India & Anr. 2006 (11)
SCALE 363 and Rajesh Kumar & Ors. v. D.C.I.T. & Ors. 2006 (11) SCALE
409]
A bare perusal of the order impugned before the High Court as also
the statements made before us in the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents, we are satisfied that the statutory authority has already applied
its mind and has formed an opinion as regards the liability or otherwise of
the appellant. If in passing the order the respondent has already determined
the liability of the appellant and the only question which remains for its
consideration is quantification thereof, the same does not remain in the
realm of a show cause notice. The writ petition, in our opinion, was
maintainable.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Brahma Datt Sharma And Anr on 25 February, 1987
Although ordinarily a writ court may not exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction in entertaining a writ petition questioning a notice to show cause
unless the same inter alia appears to have been without jurisdiction as has
been held by this Court in some decisions including State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Brahm Datt Sharma and Anr. AIR 1987 SC 943, Special Director and
Another v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, (2004) 3 SCC 440 and
Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCALE
262], but the question herein has to be considered from a different angle, viz,
when a notice is issued with pre-meditation, a writ petition would be
maintainable.
The Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949
1