Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (1.73 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta ... vs V.R. Rudani & Ors on 21 April, 1989
In those circumstances, this
Court has clearly observed as under : (V.R. Rudani
case [Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas
Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v.
V.R. Rudani, (1989) 2 SCC 691] , SCC pp. 700-701,
paras 20 & 22)
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 21 of 43
W.P.No.6159 of 2020 and etc.
‘20. The term “authority” used in Article
226, in the context, must receive a liberal meaning
unlike the term in Article 12. Article 12 is relevant
only for the purpose of enforcement of fundamental
rights under Article 32. Article 226 confers power
on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement
of the fundamental rights as well as non-
fundamental rights. The words “any person or
authority” used in Article 226 are, therefore, not to
be confined only to statutory authorities and
instrumentalities of the State. They may cover any
other person or body performing public duty. The
form of the body concerned is not very much
relevant. What is relevant is the nature of the duty
imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in
the light of positive obligation owed by the person
or authority to the affected party. No matter by
what means the duty is imposed, if a positive
obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied.
Unni Krishnan, J.P. And Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc. Etc on 4 February, 1993
540.] We share this view. The judicial control over
the fast expanding maze of bodies affecting the
rights of the people should not be put into
watertight compartment. It should remain flexible
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 22 of 43
W.P.No.6159 of 2020 and etc.
to meet the requirements of variable
circumstances. Mandamus is a very wide remedy
which must be easily available “to reach injustice
wherever it is found”. Technicalities should not
come in the way of granting that relief under
Article 226. We, therefore, reject the contention
urged for the appellant on the maintainability of
the writ petition.’
The aforesaid observations have been repeated
and reiterated in numerous judgments of this Court
including the judgments in Unni Krishnan [Unni
Krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645 :
Dr. Janet Jeyapaul vs Srm University And Anr on 15 December, 2015
In Dr. Janet Jean-Paul Vs. SRM University, (2015) 16 SCC
530, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed the judgment of Division
Bench which held that a writ petition was not maintainable before a Writ
Court by directing the appellant to approach the Tribunal.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 16 of 43
W.P.No.6159 of 2020 and etc.
Ramesh Ahluwalia vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 13 September, 2012
36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 15 held that writ
application was clearly maintainable in view of discussion and more so in
view of the decision of the Court in Ramesh Ahluwalia case referred to
supra, wherein, the Court has considered the issue at length and observed
as follows:-
Binny Ltd. & Anr vs V. Sadasivan & Ors on 8 August, 2005
In Binny Limited and Another Vs. V.Sadasivan and others,
(2005) 6 SCC 657 : 2005 SCC (L&S) J 881 2005 SCC OnLine SC 1152,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised a Writ remedy against a private
party. The Court held that if a term of a contract is violated, ordinarily,
the remedy is not a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The Court further held that when that contractual power is being
used for public purpose, it is certainly amenable to judicial review. The
power must be used for lawful purposes and not unreasonably and under
our Constitution. Article 226 of the Constitution of India is couched in
such a way that a writ of mandamus could be issued even against a
private authority. However, such private authority must be discharging a
public function and the decision sought to be corrected or enforced must
be in discharge of a public function.
Vst Industries Ltd vs Vst Industries Workers Union & Anr on 7 December, 2000
In VST Industries Ltd. v. Workers' Union
[(2001) 1 SCC 298 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 227] the very
same question came up for consideration. The
appellant Company was engaged in the manufacture
and sale of cigarettes. A petition was filed by the
first respondent under Article 226 of the
Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to treat the
members of the respondent Union, who were
employees working in the canteen of the appellant's
factory, as employees of the appellant and for grant
of monetary and other consequential benefits.
Marwari Balika Vidyalaya vs Asha Srivastava on 14 February, 2019
In Marwari Balika Vidyalaya Vs. Asha Srivastava, (2020)
14 SCC 449 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 408, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that dismissal from services of an employee who had served for five
years was stigmatic and such dismissal order passed without holding an
enquiry was clearly arbitrary, illegal and void and held that the petitioner
was entitled to back wages.
Y.Doss vs Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan on 23 January, 2009
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No 9 of 43
W.P.No.6159 of 2020 and etc.
iv. M.Theophilus Rajendra Kumar Vs. The Director
of Matriculation Schools, College Road,
Chennai-6 and Others, 2005 (3) CTC 385;
v. Y.Doss Vs. Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan Senior
Secondary School, 17, Thirumalai Pillai Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017, W.P.No.21898 of
2004.