Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.49 seconds)Section 7 in Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. vs Asst. Commissioner on 22 May, 2006
In all cases where facts are undisputed
and when the question to be decided is purely legal, it is not
necessary that the party be relegated to the alternate remedy as held
by Division Benches of this court in Grace Joseph v. State of
Kerala (supra) and Malayala Manorama Company Ltd. v. Asst.
Abl International Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Guarantee Corportion Of ... on 18 December, 2003
In fact the Supreme court has held
in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee
Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) that in an appropriate case this
court has jurisdiction to entertain a Writ Petition involving disputed
questions of fact and there is no absolute bar in regard thereto and
that if the facts so require, even oral evidence can be taken in writ
proceedings.
N. Babu, Executive Engineer, K. ... vs T.M. Poulose, Assistant Executive ... on 26 March, 2003
The Tribunal noticed that there was no dispute to the position that
establishment of a new bus stand at Valancherry is an absolute
necessity in view of the increase in the number of buses reaching that
town and that in order to satisfy the requirement of a new bus stand
the Panchayat invited proposals for suitable land and accepted the
proposal submitted by the present petitioners by a majority decision
and the Tribunal held that there is no warrant at all for interfering
with the decision of the Panchayat to accept the offer of respondents
2 and 3, i.e. the present petitioners. The decision of the Panchayat in
fact was confirmed by the statutory Tribunal and having regard to the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gojer Brothers v.
Ratan Lal (supra) which has been followed by this court in District
Executive Officer v. State of Kerala (supra), it has to be found
that the decision of the Panchayat has become emerged with that of
the Trilbunal and the order in operation is that of the Tribunal. It is
therefore doubtful whether the Panchayat could have taken the
W.P.C.No.33588/06 - 16 -
impugned decision not to implement the earlier decision till such time
as a vigilance enquiry is held and the result obtained since the
Panchayat's decision amounts to suspending the order of the
Tribunal, the appellate authority.