Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.31 seconds)Section 3 in The U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Purtabpore Co. Ltd vs Cane Commissioner Of Bihar & Ors on 21 November, 1968
In Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commr. of Bihar [(1969) 1 SCC 308 : AIR 1970 SC 1896] this Court has observed: (SCC p. 315, paras 11-12)
"11. ... The power exercisable by the Cane Commissioner under Clause 6(1) is a statutory power. He alone could have exercised that power. While exercising that power he cannot abdicate his responsibility in favour of anyone--not even in favour of the State Government or the Chief Minister. It was not proper for the Chief Minister to have interfered with the functions of the Cane Commissioner. In this case what has happened is that the power of the Cane Commissioner has been exercised by the Chief Minister, an authority not recognised by Clause 6 read with Clause 11 but the responsibility for making those orders was asked to be taken by the Cane Commissioner.
Article 166 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 25 July, 2001
In Tarlochan Dev Sharma v. State of Punjab [(2001) 6 SCC 260] this Court, after placing reliance upon a large number of its earlier judgments, observed as under: (SCC p. 273, para 16)
"16. In the system of Indian democratic governance as contemplated by the Constitution, senior officers occupying key positions such as Secretaries are not supposed to mortgage their own discretion, volition and decision-making authority and be prepared to give way or being pushed back or pressed ahead at the behest of politicians for carrying out commands having no sanctity in law. The Conduct Rules of Central Government services command the civil servants to maintain at all times absolute integrity and devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant. No government servant shall in the performance of his official duties, or in the exercise of power conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior."
State Of U.P vs Neeraj Awasthi & Others on 16 December, 2005
In State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi [(2006) 1 SCC 667 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 190] this Court held as follows in the context of government directions: (SCC p. 683, para 41)
"41. Such a decision on the part of the State Government must be taken in terms of the constitutional scheme i.e. upon compliance with the requirement of Article 162 read with Article 166 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, the directions were purported to have been issued by an officer of the State. Such directions were not shown to have been issued pursuant to any decision taken by a competent authority in terms of the Rules of Executive Business of the State framed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India."
K.K. Bhalla vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 13 January, 2006
In K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. [(2006) 3 SCC 581 : AIR 2006 SC 898] this Court has delineated the functions of the State Government and the Development Authority, observing that: (SCC pp. 596-97, paras 59-60 & 62-63)
"59. Both the State and JDA have been assigned specific functions under the statute. JDA was constituted for a specific purpose. It could not take action contrary to the scheme framed by it nor take any action which could defeat such purpose. The State could not have interfered with the day-to-day functioning of a statutory authority. Section 72 of the 1973 Act authorises the State to exercise superintendence and control over the acts and proceedings of the officers appointed under Section 3 and the authorities constituted under the Act but thereby the State cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Board itself. The Act does not contemplate any independent function by the State except as specifically provided therein.
Municipal Corporation vs Sri Niyamatullah on 21 August, 1969
In Municipal Corpn. v. Niyamatullah [(1969) 2 SCC 551 : AIR 1971 SC 97] this Court considered a case of dismissal of an employee by an authority other than the authority competent to pass such an order i.e. the Municipal Commissioner, the order was held to be without jurisdiction and thus could be termed to have been passed under the relevant Act. This Court held that: (SCC p. 554, para 12)
"12. ... To such a case, the statute under which action was purported to be taken could afford no protection."