Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.39 seconds)Centre For Public Interest Litigation vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 June, 2012
"41. The licensor/Union of India does not have the
freedom to act whimsically. As pointed out by this
Court in 2G Case [Centre for Public Interest Litigation
v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1] in the
aboveextracted paragraph, the authority of the
Union is fettered by two constitutional limitations:
firstly, that any decision of the State to grant access
to natural resources, which belong to the people,
must ensure that the people are adequately
compensated and, secondly, the process by which
such access is granted must be just, nonarbitrary
and transparent, visà vis private parties seeking
such access." (emphasis supplied)
::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2019 20:28:38 :::HCHP
15
Referring to the observations in the 2G case, the Court
also highlighted that the State is bound to act in
.
The Goa Foundation vs M/S Sesa Sterlite Ltd. And Ors. on 7 February, 2018
The position of law developed through these decisions
was summed up in the following manner by this Court
in Goa Foundation v. Sesa Sterlite Ltd., (2018) 4 SCC
218, after adverting to the various decisions referred to
above:
J S Luthra Academy vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 30 October, 2018
In this regard, I need only refer to the one of the latest
::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2019 20:28:38 :::HCHP
14
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. S. Luthra Academy
and another vs. State of Jammu and Kashimir and others,
.
Manohar Lal Sharma vs The Principle Secretary & Others on 25 August, 2014
The above principles were also reiterated in Manohar
Lal Sharma (supra), wherein this Court observed at
para 110:
Bharti Airtel Ltd vs Union Of India on 14 May, 2015
"6. This Court in a series of cases including Centre for
Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, 2012 3 SCC 1
(popularly known as the "2G case"), in Natural Resources
Allocation, In Re. Special Reference No. of 1/2012, (2012)
10 SCC 1, Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secy., (2014) 9
SCC 516, Bharti Airtel Limited v. Union Of India, (2015) 12
SCC 1, and Goa Foundation v. Sesa Sterlite Ltd., (2018) 4
SCC 218 has formulated the guidelines for allocation of
natural resources by the State.
Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 11 November, 1974
In case, the amount of open auction bid is
found less then the reserved price, then in that case, the shop/stall
has to be put to fresh auction in order to fetch minimum reserve
price so determined by the Municipality. Rules 5 provides for terms
of the lease, which clearly stipulates that Municipality has to lease
out the stalls/shop constructed by it for a period not exceeding 25
years with the stipulation of 10% increase in the rent after every
five years. As regards the procedure for auction, the same is
prescribed in Rule 6, which clearly stipulates that auction is to be
::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2019 20:28:38 :::HCHP
10
made by giving wide publicity through newspaper of the region. The
auction in terms of Rule 8 is required to be conducted by the
.
Netai Bag & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 September, 2000
It would be useful to reproduce the
following observations from Netai Bag (supra), which
were also relied upon by the Court in Natural Resources
Allocation, In Re (supra) to highlight that the ultimate
test is only that of fairness of the decision making
process and compliance with Article 14 of the
Constitution:
5 M & T Consultants, Secunderabad vs S.Y. Nawab And Anr on 26 September, 2003
r to
It would be useful to note at this juncture that in this
decision, the Court assessed the position of law
developed through a catena of decisions, including
Netai Bag & Ors. v. State of W.B. & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC
262, 5 M & T Consultants v. S.Y. Nawab, (2003) 8 SCC
100, and Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union
of 11 India, (2009) 7 SCC 561, wherein it has been held
that nonfloating of tenders or holding of auction by
itself is not sufficient to hold that the exercise of power
was arbitrary.
Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 May, 2009
r to
It would be useful to note at this juncture that in this
decision, the Court assessed the position of law
developed through a catena of decisions, including
Netai Bag & Ors. v. State of W.B. & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC
262, 5 M & T Consultants v. S.Y. Nawab, (2003) 8 SCC
100, and Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union
of 11 India, (2009) 7 SCC 561, wherein it has been held
that nonfloating of tenders or holding of auction by
itself is not sufficient to hold that the exercise of power
was arbitrary.