Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)Sri Abraham. T.J vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 July, 2017
In Abraham T.J. Vs. The State of Karnataka [2017(7) Scale 641],
a similar issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
In the said case, two ladies donated 5 Acres of land to establish a Mini
Vidhana Soudha (The Taluk Office) in Aland Taluk, Karnataka. However, a
decision was taken by the Government subsequently not to establish the Mini
Vidhana Soudha at the originally chosen place at Aland, but to shift to
another place in the same Taluk. The Writ Petition filed by the petitioner
challenging such shifting of the place by alleging mala fides and raising a
contention that there had been violation of the conditional gift deed
executed by the two ladies was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka.
While upholding the High Court order and imposing cost of Rs.25,00,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) to be deposited by the petitioner, the Supreme
Court observed thus:
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh & Anr on 10 March, 2008
(ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Chaudhari Ran Beer
Singh [2008(5) SCC 550], made it clear that so long as the infringement of
fundamental right is not shown, Courts will have no occasion to interfere in
policy decision taken by the Government. The Supreme Court said:
Md.Murtaza & Ors vs State Of Assam & Ors on 29 August, 2011
(iii) The Supreme Court in Mohd. Murtaza v. State of Assam [2011(12)
SCC 413] observed that certain matters are by their very nature such as had
better be left to the administrative authorities instead of Courts themselves
seeking to substitute their own views and perceptions as to what is the best
solution to the problem. It was further held that in matters of policy, the
Courts have a limited role and it should interfere only with the same when it
is clearly illegal.
Gramvikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra & Others on 11 April, 2000
(v) The Supreme Court in Raj Shikshan Prasarak Mandal v. State of
Maharashtra [2001(10) SCC 75], while refusing to interfere in the policy
decision of shifting the School from Mallapur to Ardahpur in the State of
Maharashtra, observed that so long as the Government decision is not actuated
with any malice or is not the outcome of an arbitrary and whimsical act, the
same should not be interfered with by a Court of law under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
1