Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.19 seconds)
Siddha Raj Dhadda vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 June, 1989 cites

State Of Himachal Pradesh vs A Parent Of A Student Of Medical College. ... on 11 April, 1985

2. The court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. A. Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simila, (1985) 3 SCC 169 : (AIR 1985 SC 910) in para 4 of the judgment said that where the court finds on being moved by an aggrieved party or by any public spirited individual or social action group, that the executive is remiss in discharging its obligations under the Constitution or the law, so that the poor and the underprivileged continue to be subjected to exploitation and injustice or are deprived of their social and economic entitlements or that social legislation enacted for their benefit is not being implemented thus depriving them of the rights and benefits conferred upon them, the court certainly can and must intervene and compel the executive to carry out its constitutional and legal obligations. No doubt the court said that the court cannot even indirectly require the executive to introduce a particular legislation or the legislature to pass it or assume to itself a supervisory role over the law-making activities of the executive and the legislature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 186 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union Of India & Others on 16 December, 1983

9. In the public interest litigation arguments were heard more than once and all sugestions to the learned counsel for the State that a committee in consultation with the court should be appointed, and personnel of the committee should be decided by the State Government in consultation with the court or their names should be disclosed first, were not accepted. As the proceedings taken before thsi court will show that the State Government has contested this petition and only when the arguments were being heard, to a suggestion of the court Mr. Calla, learned counsel for the State communicated to us orally that the State Government principally agrees to the appointment of the committee and an administrative order dated May 23, 1989 was produced before us by Mr. Calla much after the closure of arguments and even till date it is not known whether any administrative action has been taken in accordance with the said order of the State Government and if so, who are the personnel who have been appointed as the Members of that proposed high power committee. Possibly, the Government does not want inquiry by the court through the Commissioners/investigators appointed by it and that is why after the order was reserved such an administrative order dated May 23, 1989 has been made. Once the matter came up to the court in a case of present nature, which relates to the conditions in the government run hospitals where crores of rupees of public funds are involved; relates to the treatment to poor and downtrodden weaker section of the society who by and large come to the hospital, in our opinion it becomes the duty of the court to appoint the Commissioner/Commissioners to go into the matter and to submit their report with the suggestions of remedial measures which are rquired. The court cannot be the silent spectator and should, rather must intervene. The mere fact that the Government agrees to the appointment of a committee or has made an administrative order in that direction will not make the petition filed before the court infructuous. Even if the State Government on its own or on inquiry by the proposed committee may be ultimately satisfied that there is no mismanagement in Government run hospitals incluidng the S.M.S. Hospital, the conditions are superb or that there is mismanagement which calls for remedial measures, the State Government should not have even contested this petition and should have allowed the Commissioners appointed by the court and the report of the commissioners, if any, might have facilitated the task of the State Government to improve the conditions in the S.M.S. Hospital Jaipur, and other government run hospitals. The Supreme Court in a famous case of Bandhu Mukti Morcha (AIR 1984 SC 802) (supra) in para No. 9 said that --
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 579 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next