Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.28 seconds)The University Grants Commission Act, 1956
Section 3 in The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Amir-Jamia And Ors. vs Desharath Raj on 25 November, 1968
Prof. Dr. V. Ganeshan vs Central Institute Of English And ... on 7 February, 2000
20.In Prof. Dr.V.Ganeshan vs. Central Institute of English and
Foreign Languages (2000 (1) ALT 519), a learned Judge of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court was concerned with a challenge to the appointment of a
person as a Rector and the delegation of certain powers and duties of the
Vice Chancellor to him. The institute involved in the said case was registered
as a Society under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, but it was
established by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government
of India. The institution had the status of a deemed University. After taking
note of several decisions, including the decision of the Supreme Court in
Unni Krishnan, the learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held
that the Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages was an authority
within the meeting of Article 12 of the Constitution, since it was conferred the
power to grant Diplomas and Degrees and also since the entire financial
assistance was provided by the Central Government.
Centre For Policy Research vs Brahma Chellaney & Ors. on 12 March, 2010
22.In centre for Police Research vs. Brahma Chellaney
(MANU/DE/071/2010), the termination of service of a Research Professor
employed in the Centre for Policy Research was upheld by a learned Judge of
the Delhi High Court. The Centre filed an appeal and before the Division
Bench, the question of maintainability was pressed.
Binny Ltd. & Anr vs V. Sadasivan & Ors on 8 August, 2005
Though several decisions
of various Courts were noted by the Division Bench, the Division Bench
ultimately followed the triple test laid down by the Supreme Court in Binny
Ltd vs. V.Sadasivan (2005 (6) SCC 657), to come to the conclusion that the
writ petition was maintainable. The triple test was (i) whether the private
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
body was discharging a public function (ii) whether the decision sought to be
11
corrected or enforced was in the discharging of a public function and (ii)
whether the public duty imposed is or is not of a discretionary character. The
Court also took note of the observation of the Supreme Court that the scope
of Mandamus is determined by the nature of duties to be enforced rather than
the identity of the authority against whom it is sought. Eventually, the
Division Bench pointed out in paragraph 37 of its decision as follows:-
Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2005
In this context, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Zee Telefilms Limited and another v. Union of
India and others (2005 4 SCC 649) states, Thus, it is clear that when a private
body exercises its public functions even if it is not a State, the aggrieved person
has a remedy not only under the ordinary law but also under the Constitution,
by way of a writ petition under Article 226. The tests laid down by the Hon’ble
Bench in this regard are as below: