Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.17 seconds)
Unknown vs State Of Kerala on 17 January, 2017 cites

Ram Bharosey Agarwal vs Har Swarup Maheshwari on 27 April, 1976

6. The contentions of the petitioner, as put forth by the learned Sr. Counsel, are mainly two fold. Firstly that, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing Ext.P3 and hence there is violation of the principles of Natural Justice. The second contention is that Ext.P3 order passed by the second respondent is not liable to be treated as an order passed by the Committee under the Act 19 of 2006, the same having been signed by the Chairman alone and not by the Committee. The Admission Supervisory Committee as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act and constituted under Section 4(1) of the Act consists of 6 persons as mentioned therein and this being the position, the order passed solely by the . W.P.(C)No.40092 OF 2016 7 Chairman, virtually amounts to usurpation of powers and hence is liable to be interfered by this Court. Though the statute does not contemplate any 'Quorum' for convening the Committee to transact the business, it is stated that, in the absence of any such stipulation, the decision of the Committee, to be valid, shall be taken by simple majority . Reliance is sought to be placed on the verdicts passed by the Apex Court in AIR 1976 SC 1739 (Ram Bharosey Agarwal vs. Har Swarup Maheshwari). It is contended that the verdict passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)No.17328 of 2014 holding similar order as correct, by virtue of the specific provisions in the Statute, particularly Section 4(2) and 5(3) of the Act, is contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court in AIR 1976 SC 1739 (cited supra), which was omitted to be noted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 9 - P N Shinghal - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr vs S.V. Bratheep (Minor) And Ors on 16 March, 2004

8. Ms. Mary Benjamin, the learned Standing Counsel for the Admission Supervisory Committee submits that the idea and . W.P.(C)No.40092 OF 2016 9 understanding of the petitioner is thoroughly wrong and misconceived. Making a reference to the law declared by 'three member Bench' of the Supreme Court in 2004 (4) SCC 513 (State of T.N. and another vs. S.V.Bratheep) , a subsequent Bench of the Apex Court, as per the decision in (2011) 4 SCC 606 = AIR 2011 SC 1429 (Visveswaraiah Technological University and another vs. Krishnendu Halder and others) held that the law laid down in 1995(4) SCC 104 (cited supra)was no more good law . It is also pointed out that the Apex Court has made it clear that there is nothing wrong on the part of the State in prescribing higher standards, than the minimum standard prescribed by the AICTE, as held in 2004 (4) SCC 513 (cited supra).Since the admission from the pre-normalised list has been done away with, as per the relevant G.O. issued by the Government and since the challenge raised against the said G.O. has been repelled as per the verdict passed in W.P.(C) No.23829 of 2016, it is quite obligatory to have cleared the Entrance Test for getting admission. Para 16 of Ext.P1(a) . W.P.(C)No.40092 OF 2016 10 agreement executed between the Management of Associations (also representing the petitioner) and para 17 therein make the said position crystal-clear. The petitioner being one of the members of the Management Association, having been placed at Sl.No.49 in Ext.P1(a) agreement, is estopped from taking a U- turn and saying something contrary to the Agreement. Writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone, submits the learned Standing Counsel.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 158 - Full Document

Visweswaraiah Technological Univ.& ... vs Krishnendu Halder & Ors on 18 February, 2011

8. Ms. Mary Benjamin, the learned Standing Counsel for the Admission Supervisory Committee submits that the idea and . W.P.(C)No.40092 OF 2016 9 understanding of the petitioner is thoroughly wrong and misconceived. Making a reference to the law declared by 'three member Bench' of the Supreme Court in 2004 (4) SCC 513 (State of T.N. and another vs. S.V.Bratheep) , a subsequent Bench of the Apex Court, as per the decision in (2011) 4 SCC 606 = AIR 2011 SC 1429 (Visveswaraiah Technological University and another vs. Krishnendu Halder and others) held that the law laid down in 1995(4) SCC 104 (cited supra)was no more good law . It is also pointed out that the Apex Court has made it clear that there is nothing wrong on the part of the State in prescribing higher standards, than the minimum standard prescribed by the AICTE, as held in 2004 (4) SCC 513 (cited supra).Since the admission from the pre-normalised list has been done away with, as per the relevant G.O. issued by the Government and since the challenge raised against the said G.O. has been repelled as per the verdict passed in W.P.(C) No.23829 of 2016, it is quite obligatory to have cleared the Entrance Test for getting admission. Para 16 of Ext.P1(a) . W.P.(C)No.40092 OF 2016 10 agreement executed between the Management of Associations (also representing the petitioner) and para 17 therein make the said position crystal-clear. The petitioner being one of the members of the Management Association, having been placed at Sl.No.49 in Ext.P1(a) agreement, is estopped from taking a U- turn and saying something contrary to the Agreement. Writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this score alone, submits the learned Standing Counsel.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 145 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

The Principal Karuna Medical College vs The Admission Supervisory Committee ... on 19 July, 2016

9. With regard to the authority of the second respondent Committee to have passed Ext.P3 order (by the Chairman ), it is stated that the issue is covered by the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)No.17328 of 2014, (the Principal, Karuna Medical College vs. The Admission Supervisory Committee & Fee Regulatory Committee for Professional Colleges of Kerala). The observations made by the Supreme Court as to the necessity to have simple majority, when no quorum is mentioned in the statute, are stated as not applicable to the case in hand, by virtue of the vital difference in . W.P.(C)No.40092 OF 2016 11 the scenario, which in the instant case is governed by specific provisions in the statute, particularly Section 4(2) of the Act, conferring power upon the Committee to decide its own procedure for transaction of business, r/w. Section 5(3) and such other provisions. The verdict passed by the Supreme Court, which is sought to be relied on by the petitioner, was also adverted to and it was thereafter that the verdict was rendered by the Division Bench as above, referring to the resolutions dated 19.02.2007 and 04.07.2013 passed by the Committee, enabling the Chairman to pass appropriate orders on urgency and to get it ratified as specified. The learned Standing Counsel adds that Ext.P3 order passed by the Chairman has been ratified in the next meeting of the Committee and there is no infirmity at all, in any manner.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Punjab University, Chandigarh vs Vijay Singh Lamba Etc. Etc on 15 April, 1976

17. A Division Bench of this Court has already considered exactly similar issue and after making a reference to the relevant decisions rendered by the Supreme Court on the point including 1976(3) SCC 344 (Punjab University vs. Vijay Singh Lamba) and( 1976)3 SCC 435 [Ram Bharosey Agarwqal vs. Har Swarup Maheshwari] held that, by virtue of the scheme of the statute involved (Act 19 of 2006) and the mandate of Section 4(2)of the Act, enabling the Committee to lay down its own procedure, read with Section 5(3) of the Act, the decision rendered by the Supreme Court (holding that when no specific . W.P.(C)No.40092 OF 2016 22 quorum is mentioned under the Statute, the decision has to be taken by the Committee with simple majority), is not applicable to the case in hand. The Bench adverted to the Resolutions passed by the Committee on 19.02.2007 and 04.07.2013( passed in exercise of the power under Section 4(2) of the Act) authorising the Chairman to pass/take urgent decisions/orders/steps and to have it ratified by two members in the manner as specified therein.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 32 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Ishwar Chandra vs Satyanarain Sinha & Ors on 14 March, 1972

18. Very strong reliance is placed by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners on the verdict passed by the Apex . W.P.(C)No.40092 OF 2016 23 Court in AIR 1972 SC 1812 (Ishwar Chandra vs. Satyanarain Sinha and others), 1988 (Supp) SCC 562 (State of Andhra Pradesh and another vs. Dr. Mohanjit Singh and another) and also on paragraph 395 of the Constitution Bench Decision in (2016)5 SCC 1 (Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association vs. Union of India) to contend that when the Statute does not prescribe any quorum for taking a decision by the Committee concerned, it has to be by 'simple majority' and nothing less than that. By virtue of the said law, the impugned order passed by the Chairman of the ASC is not liable to be treated as a valid order and hence is sought to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 46 - P J Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next