Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Buddhabhushan Anand Londhe Another vs Union Of India & Ors. on 3 May, 2023
28. This court has affirmed this view in its decision dated 03.05.2023 in
the case of Buddhabhushan Anand Londhe and Another v. Union of India
& Ors.2. While referring to a catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court dealing with the interference of the court in the domain of Executive
and Regulatory Authority, it was held that:
Indian Institute Of Technology ... vs Soutrik Sarangi on 28 September, 2021
In the case of Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur and Others
v. Soutrik Sarangi and Other3, while placing reliance on a decision in the
case of All India Council for Teacher Education v. Surinder Kumar
Dhawan4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the similar view and held that:
Union Of India & Others vs S. Vinodh Kumar & Others on 18 September, 2007
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. S.
Vinodh Kumar5, while placing reliance on its earlier pronouncements in the
cases of Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil6 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P.
Public Service Commission7, held that:
Munindra Kumar And Ors. Etc vs Rajiv Govil And Ors Etc on 10 May, 1991
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. S.
Vinodh Kumar5, while placing reliance on its earlier pronouncements in the
cases of Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil6 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P.
Public Service Commission7, held that:
Ku. Rashmi Mishra vs Madhya Pradesh Public Service ... on 19 October, 2006
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. S.
Vinodh Kumar5, while placing reliance on its earlier pronouncements in the
cases of Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil6 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P.
Public Service Commission7, held that:
Maharashtra State Board Of Secondary ... vs Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth Etc on 17 July, 1984
"16. In our opinion, the aforesaid approach made by the High
Court is wholly incorrect and fallacious. The Court cannot sit
in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the
Legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body It may
be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the
enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence
calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in
the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render
it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground
that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is
even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate
the purposes of the Act. The Legislature and its delegate are
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEHA Digitally Signed
CHOPRA
Signing Date:19.07.2023 By:PURUSHAINDRA
15:53:12 KUMAR KAURAV
16
the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should
be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there
is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular
provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any
legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the
scope of the regulation-making power or its being inconsistent
with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in
violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution.
None of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in the present
case and hence there was no scope at all for the High Court to
invalidate the provision contained in clause (3) of Regulation
104 as ultra vires on the grounds of its being in excess of the
regulation-making power conferred on the Board. Equally
untenable, in our opinion, is the next and last ground by the
High Court for striking down clause (3) of Regulation 104 as
unreasonable, namely, that it is in the nature of a bye-law and
is ultra vires on the ground of its being an unreasonable
provision. It is clear from the scheme of the Act and more
particularly. Sections 18, 19 and 34 that the Legislature has
laid down in broad terms its policy to provide for the
establishment of a State Board and Divisional Boards to
regulate matters pertaining to secondary and higher secondary
education in the State and it has authorised the State
Government in the first instance and subsequently the Board to
enunciate the details for carrying into effect the purposes of the
Act by framing regulations. It is a common legislative practice
that the Legislature may choose to lay down only the general
policy and leave to its delegate to make detailed provisions for
carrying into effect the said policy and effectuate the purposes
of the statute by framing rules/regulations which are in the
nature of subordinate legislation. Section 3(39) of the Bombay
General clauses Act, 1904, which defines the expression "rule"
The State Of Bihar vs Dr. Sachindra Narayan on 30 January, 2019
In State of Bihar v. Sachindra Narayan (supra), the
Apex Court has held:
Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993
In the
case of Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation8, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court while striking a distinction between anticipation and
legitimate expectation held that:
Kerala State Beverages (M And M) Corp ... vs P P Suresh And Ors. Etc. Etc. on 4 October, 2019
35. In the case of Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation. Ltd. v.
P.P. Suresh9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking a similar view, held
that: