Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.52 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Transport & Dock Workers Union & Ors vs Mumbai Port Trust & Anr on 15 November, 2010
21. The judicial review of the administrative policies has been discouraged by the latest judgment of the Supreme Court due to the reason that it involves inherent complexity, as held in the Transport and Dock Workers Union and others vs. Mumbai Port Trust and another (2011(2)SCC 575), wherein it was held that the decision which requires technical and commercial expertise knowledge involves inherent complexities in the modern society and that has to be left to the wisdom of the administrative authorities. In that case, it was also held that, fixation of the hours of work is a managerial function. His Lordship Markandey Katju,J. speaking for the Bench in the above said Judgment, has observed that,
" 24. Numerous decisions of this Court on Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution have no doubt held certain classifications to be reasonable while other classifications have been held to be unreasonable. But what is reasonable and what is unreasonable does not appear to have been discussed in depth by any decision of this Court, and no tests have been laid down in this connection.
Punjab Communications Ltd vs Union Of India & Others on 4 May, 1999
" 42. Again in Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborately examined the principles of legitimate expectation and a change in policy by the Government. While dealing with the second question formulated by the Court viz. whether if essentially the Government decided to fund the proposed contract for Eastern U.P. from its own resources, it was permissible for the Government to change its policy into one for providing telephones for rural areas in the entire country and whether legitimate expectation of the appellant in regard to the earlier notification required the Court to direct that a notification for Eastern U.P. should be continued, this Court held in para 45 of the Report thus: (SCC p. 751)
45. It will be noticed that at one stage when the ADB loan lapsed, the Government took a decision to go ahead with the project on its own funds. But later it thought that the scheme regarding telephones in rural areas must cover not only the villages in Eastern U.P. but also in other backward rural areas in other States. The statistics given in the counter- affidavits of the Union of India to which we have already referred, show that there are other States in the country where the percentage of telephones is far less than what it is in Eastern U.P. The said facts are the reason for the change in the policy of the Government and for giving up the notification calling for bids for Eastern U.P. Such a change in policy cannot, in our opinion, be said to be irrational or perverse according to Wednesbury principles. In the circumstances, on the basis of the clear principles laid down in ex p Hargreaves and ex p Unilever the Wednesbury principle of irrationality or perversity is not attracted and the revised policy cannot be said to be in such gross violation of any substantive legitimate expectation of the appellant which warrants interference in judicial review proceedings.
" 46.
The Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs D. J. Bahadur & Ors on 10 November, 1980
15. The judgment in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. D.J.Bahadur and others (1981 (1) SCC 315), especially para 46, on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is as follows:
Shimnit Utsch India Pvt.Ltd. & Anr vs W.B. Tpt.Infrastructure ... on 12 May, 2010
19. Regarding the principles of legitimate expectation, in the light of the policy decision, in Shimnit Utsch India Private Ltd., and another vs. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., and others (2010(6) SCC 303), the Supreme Court, by relying upon the judgment in Punjab Communications Ltd., vs. Union of India (1999 (4) SCC 727) and Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., vs. CTO (2005 (1) SCC 625), held as follows:
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
State Of Orissa vs Ram Chandra Dev & Anr on 25 November, 1963
" 23. Undoubtedly, while exercising the extraordinary original jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court ought to come to the rescue of those who are victims of injustice, but not at the cost of well-established legal principles. The circumstances in which a High Court could issue an appropriate writ under these articles was delineated by a Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev wherein Gajendragadkar, J. speaking for the Court observed as follows: (AIR p. 688, para 8)
8. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the High Court is undoubtedly very wide. Appropriate writs can be issued by the High Court under the said article even for purposes other than the enforcement of the fundamental rights and in that sense, a party who invokes the special jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is not confined to cases of illegal invasion of his fundamental rights alone. But though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is wide in that sense, the concluding words of the article clearly indicate that before a writ or an appropriate order can be issued in favour of a party, it must be established that the party has a right and the said right is illegally invaded or threatened. The existence of a right is thus the foundation of a petition under Article 226.