Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
16. The following observations found in the celebrated
decision in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election
Commr., are relevant to this question:
Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji on 23 November, 1951
9. The orders debarring the appellant-petitioner from
appearing in the main examination will have to be reviewed as
annunciated by the court as to what orders on administrative
side would be the subject of the judicial review. In this case, the
validity of the order which has been challenged by the appellant-
petitioner in the writ petition did not find favour with the learned
Single Judge as the ground pressed in the said order of the
authority was considered and the learned Single Judge felt
unnecessary to analyze the same on the touch-stone of principles
for judicial review. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the
writ petition only on the premise that certificate is bad, which
cannot be sustained, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Gordhandas
Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 and in case of
Page 6 of 10
7 of 11
C/SCA/10492/2015 ORDER
Mohinder Singh Gil vs. Chief Election Commissioner,
reported in (1978)1 SCC 405.
Rashmi Metaliks Limited And Another vs The Kolkata Metropolitan Development ... on 2 July, 2013
In the case of Rashmi Metaliks Limited and Anr.
vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Ors.,
reported in (2013) 10 SCC 95, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex
Court has observed in para-16, as under:
Dir. Of Settlements, A.P. & Ors vs M.R. Apparao & Anr on 20 March, 2002
In the
case of Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao,
reported in (2002) 4 SCC 638, the Hon'ble Apex Court stated
that "the powers of the High Court under Article 226 though are
discretionary and no limits can be placed upon their discretion,
they must be exercised along the recognised lines and subject to
certain selfimposed limitations. The expression 'for any other
purpose' in Article 226, makes the jurisdiction of the High Courts
more extensive but yet the courts must exercise the same with
certain restraints and within some parameters."
State Of Orissa vs Ram Chander Agarwala Etc on 5 October, 1978
13. As early as in the year 1964, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra, reported in AIR
1964 SC 685, has
observed as under:
Hiteshkumar Babubhai Prajapati vs State Of Gujarat & on 19 November, 2014
In the case of Hiteshkumar Babubhai Prajapati v. State of
Gujarat in Special Civil Application No.13501 of 2014 decided on
19.11.2014, wherein the learned single judge made the following
observations:
Mori Uttamkumar Raisinhbhai vs Gujarat Public Service Commission & on 27 March, 2014
In the case of Mori Uttamkumar Raisinhbhai v. Gujarat
Public Service Commission vide Letters Patent Appeal No.732 of
2013 with Civil Application No.5624 of 2013 decided on 27.03.2014.
It appears that issue before the Division Bench was almost identical.
The relevant observations made by the Division Bench are quoted as
under:-
1