Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.43 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 [Entire Act]
Brij Mohan Parihar vs M.P. State Road Transport Corporation & ... on 25 November, 1986
In Brij Mohan Parihan v. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation it has been held that no mandamus will be issued directing to do a thing forbidden by law. The Supreme Court has held thus.
Rajendra Singh Yadav And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 23 March, 1990
13. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the Government has decided to develop the forest into 'Nellai Wild Life Sanctuary' for the protection and conservation of wild Life and Flora and the land in question falls within that sanctuary area and that being the position, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, no part of the land can be leased out to any individual for his benefit like the petitioner. The Additional Government Pleader also placed reliance upon the decision reported in Usuft Khasis v. Rangage Officer Jirimukh A.I.R. 1954, Manipur 31; Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh ; Preeti Singha Roy v. Calcutta Tramsways Co. .
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Ramdeo Yadav & Ors on 26 February, 1996
19. Admittedly, the land in question forms part of reserved forest. Though Mr. Sekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that there was an earlier order "D" reservation but factually there is no such order and the very proceedings relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner makes it abundantly clear that the land in question still forms part of reserved forest and that being the position, Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, definitely bars the State Government from granting lease or using the forest land for non-forest purposes or assigning the land or granting lease of the forest land, either, to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation. Thus the statutory embargo also bars the 1st respondent, State Government to renew the lease in favour of the petitioner. This Court sitting in Article 226 of the Constitution also cannot compel the respondent's or by issue of a writ of mandamus direct the respondents to violate the statutory provisions. Nor can the Court give a direction to the 1st respondent to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law. The Apex Court in State of Bihar v. Ramdeo Yadev has held that no mandamus would be issued directing the Government to disobey the law. It has been held thus:
Preeti Singha Roy vs Calcutta Tramways Co. (1978) Ltd. on 14 March, 1986
13. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the Government has decided to develop the forest into 'Nellai Wild Life Sanctuary' for the protection and conservation of wild Life and Flora and the land in question falls within that sanctuary area and that being the position, as rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Pleader, no part of the land can be leased out to any individual for his benefit like the petitioner. The Additional Government Pleader also placed reliance upon the decision reported in Usuft Khasis v. Rangage Officer Jirimukh A.I.R. 1954, Manipur 31; Rajendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh ; Preeti Singha Roy v. Calcutta Tramsways Co. .
State Of U.P. vs Sant Lal Har Prasad on 2 January, 1963
In this respect, the Apex Court in the decision reported in State of U.P. v. Dhar Mander Prasad Singh had laid down the law relating to the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. At page 1010 it has been held thus:
1