Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.20 seconds)
Jagjeevan Singh And Another vs State Of H.P. And Another on 1 May, 2015 cites

Netai Bag & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 September, 2000

"10. The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustments and policy decisions, which may be necessary or called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. The Court may not strike down a policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been more fair or wise, scientific or logic. The principle of reasonableness and nonarbitrariness in governmental action is the core of our r constitutional scheme and structure. Its interpretation will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. Reference in this regard can also be made to Netai Bag v. State of West Bengal [(2000) 8 SCC 262 : (AIR 2000 SC 3313)]."
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 156 - Full Document

Bhubaneswar Development Authority & ... vs Adikanda Biswal & Ors on 1 February, 2012

15. It appears that the respondents have examined all aspects and made the decision. Thus, it cannot be said that the decision making process is bad. The Court can not sit in appeal and examine correctness of policy decision. The Apex Court in the case titled as Bhubaneswar Development Authority and another versus Adikanda Biswal and others, reported in (2012) 11 SCC 731 laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce para 19 of the judgment herein:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Census Commissioner & Ors vs R.Krishamurthy on 7 November, 2014

8. The scope of judicial review and its exclusion was a subject matter of a recent decision by three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Census Commissioner and others vs. R. Krishnamurthy (2015) 2 SCC 796 and it was held that it is not within the domain of Courts to embark upon enquiry as to whether particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether better policy could be evolved, Court can only interfere if policy framed is absolutely capricious or not informed by reasons or totally arbitrary and founded on ipse dixit offending Article 14.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 146 - D Misra - Full Document

Suresh Seth vs Commissioner, Indore Municipal ... on 6 October, 2005

In this context, we may refer to a three-Judge Bench decision in Suresh Seth V. Commr., Indore Municipal Corporation, (2005) 13 SCC 287 wherein a prayer was made before this Court to issue directions for appropriate amendment in the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 so that a person may be debarred from simultaneously holding two elected offices, namely, that of a Member of the Legislative Assembly and also of a Mayor of a Municipal Corporation. Repelling the said submission, the Court held: (SCC pp. 288-89, para 5) "5......In our opinion, this is a matter of policy for the elected representatives of people to decide and no direction in this regard can be issued by the Court. That apart this Court cannot issue any direction to the legislature to make any particular kind of enactment. Under out constitutional scheme Parliament and Legislative Assemblies exercise sovereign power to enact laws and no outside power or authority can issue a direction to enact a particular piece of legislation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 67 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Supreme Court Employees' Welfare ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 24 July, 1989

In Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187 (SCC para 51) it has been held that no court can direct a legislature to enact a ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 18:05:28 :::HCHP 7 particular law. Similarly, when an executive authority exercises a legislative power by way of a subordinate legislation pursuant to the delegated authority of a legislature, such executive authority .
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 588 - M M Dutt - Full Document
1   2 3 Next