Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 33 (0.30 seconds)Babu Ram Sagar vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. ... on 3 February, 2009
This Court has echoed the same views
in Filmistan Exhibitors Ltd. v. NCT of Delhi [Filmistan Exhibitors
Ltd. v. NCT of Delhi, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 471 : (2006) 131
DLT 648] by holding that even if there is a violation of law, this
Court is not bound to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and
in Babu Ram Sagar v. Labour Court [Babu Ram Sagar v. Labour
Court, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 1648] by refusing to interfere in
exercise of discretionary powers in spite of holding the reasons
given by the Labour Court to be not convincing.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Paralympic Committee Of India vs Naresh Kumar Sharma And Anr. on 18 April, 2018
16. If the law as laid down by the Apex Court, the learned
single Judges of the High Court of Delhi to which I am in complete
agreement of, and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court of Delhi in the case of PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE OF
INDIA supra is fitted qua the facts obtaining in the case at hand,
what would unmistakably emerge is, that the doors of this Court to
the petitioner are not even ajar but are completely closed, as the
power of judicial review of a policy decision is unavailable except in
cases of palpable and demonstrable arbitrariness. As observed
hereinabove, this Court does not possess the wherewithal to ride
over a policy decision, particularly in the sporting event or
conferment of awards to those deserving in such sporting events.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Taherakhatoon (D) By Lrs vs Salambin Mohammad on 26 February, 1999
Similarly, in Taherakhatoon v. Salambin
Mohammad [Taherakhatoon v. Salambin Mohammad, (1999) 2
SCC 635] even at the time of the dealing with the appeal
after grant of special leave, it was held that the court
was not bound to go into the merits and even if entering
into the merits and finding an error, was not bound to
interfere if the justice of the case on facts does not
require interference or if the relief could be moulded in a
different fashion.
Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2005
The majority Judgment in Zee Telefilms v. UOI (2005) 4
SCC 649 also found merit in the argument that if sporting
bodies as Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI) were to
be amenable to Writ Jurisdiction it would open the flood Gates
of litigation under Article 226 and 32 of Constitution of India.
(See para 34 of the Judgment)
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954
15. The counsel for the petitioner, has from the
documents on record also urged that there are obvious
mistakes in the computation done. It is however a
settled principle that a mere mistake is not sufficient for
this Court to exercise powers under Article 226. The
Authority/Body whose decision under the
Rules/Guidelines has been conferred finality and against
whose decision no appeal is permitted, even if makes a
mistake, such mistake is no ground for the powers under
Article 226 to be exercised. A Six Judge Bench of the
Apex Court as far back as in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed
Ahmad Ishaque AIR 1955 SC 233 held that Certiorari will
not issue as the cloak of an appeal in disguise. It exists
to correct error of law where revealed on the face of an
order or a decision or irregularity or absence of or excess
of jurisdiction where shown. It was further held that for
a Writ of Certiorari to be issued, it should be something
more than a mere error.
Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Reg. Bank&Anr vs Munna Lal Jain on 16 December, 2004
Again, in Damoh Panna Sagar
Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain AIR 2005 SC
584 it was held that this court would not interfere with
the decision unless it is illogical or suffers from
procedural impropriety or shocks the conscience of the
court in the sense that it is an defiance of logic or moral
standards; the court would not go into the correctness of
the choice open to the person vested with the power to
make such choice and the court should not substitute it's
decision over that of the said person. The scope of
Judicial Review is limited to deficiency in decision
making process and not the decision. In the present
case, neither is there anything shocking the conscience
of the court nor any error pointed out in the decision
making process. It is the decision which is said to be
erroneous and which adjudication is outside the ambit of
exercise of powers of Judicial Review.
State Of U.P. And Anr vs Johri Mal on 21 April, 2004
12. A perusal of the above order makes it clear that the
Committee of Administrators was entrusted with all the powers
and duties of functioning of the Federation. The Committee of
Administrators has minutely examined the claim of each of the
sportsperson and passed a detailed order while finalising the
41
list, which is under challenge. The power of judicial review in the
matters relating to sports can be exercised only if there is an
allegation of bad faith. In such matters, the courts should give
great credence to the decision of the Expert Committee and the
coaches. If the courts starts interfering in the decision of such
Committees it would have a drastic inhibiting effect on its
functioning. The scope of power of judicial review was also laid
down by the Supreme court in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal [State
of U.P. v. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714] wherein it was held that
the scope and extent of power of the judicial review of the High
Court contained in Article 226 of the Constitution of India would
vary from case to case, the nature of the order, the relevant
statute as also the other relevant factors including the nature of
power exercised by the public authorities, namely, whether the
power is statutory, quasi-judicial or administrative. It was held
that the power of judicial review is not intended to assume a
supervisory role or don the robes of omnipresent or to review
governance under the rule of law or to enable the courts to step
into the areas exclusively reserved by the suprema lex to the
other organs of the State. It was expressly observed that an
order passed by an administrative authority exercising discretion
vested in it, cannot be interfered in judicial review unless it is
shown that exercise of discretion itself is perverse or illegal.