Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.80 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 213 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 21 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Babu Verghese & Ors vs Bar Council Of Kerala & Ors on 16 March, 1999
It is a well established principle of law that if the manner of doing a
particular act is prescribed under any statute then the act must be done in
that manner or not at all. The aforesaid legal position has been laid down
by this Court in the case of Babu Verghese & Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala
& Ors.[7], the relevant paragraphs of which are extracted hereunder :
Nasir Ahmad And Ors. vs King-Emperor on 12 May, 1927
These
cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P.
v. Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case was again
upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by
courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of
administrative law.”
The aforesaid important aspect of the case should have been considered by
the Division Bench of the High Court instead of mechanically accepting the
argument advanced on behalf of the respondents that the case of the
appellant squarely falls under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) read with Rule 9 (2)(b)(ii)
of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore, the findings recorded by the
Division Bench in the impugned judgment are erroneous in law and are liable
to be set aside.
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh And Another vs The State Of Vindhya Pradesh on 22 May, 1953
32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur
Singh v. State of U.P. and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan.
Deep Chand vs The State Of Rajasthan on 30 March, 1961
32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur
Singh v. State of U.P. and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Singhara Singh And Others on 16 August, 1963
These
cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P.
v. Singhara Singh and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case was again
upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by
courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of
administrative law.”
The aforesaid important aspect of the case should have been considered by
the Division Bench of the High Court instead of mechanically accepting the
argument advanced on behalf of the respondents that the case of the
appellant squarely falls under Rule 9(2)(b)(i) read with Rule 9 (2)(b)(ii)
of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Therefore, the findings recorded by the
Division Bench in the impugned judgment are erroneous in law and are liable
to be set aside.