Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
T. C. Basappa vs T. Nagappa And Another on 5 May, 1954
In a
Constitution Bench judgment reported as AIR 1954 SC
440 (T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa) it was held that the High
Court has power to issue writs in a case where subordinate
tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction
or in excess of it or in violation of the principles of natural
justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them or
there is an error apparent on the face of record but such
jurisdiction is not wide or large as to enable the High Court
to convert itself into a Court of appeal and examine for itself
the correctness of the decision impugned.
State Of Mysore & Anr vs K.N. Chandrasekhara & Ors on 31 July, 1964
In another Constitution Bench judgment reported
as AIR 1965 SC 532 (State of Mysore v. K.N.
Chandrasekhara), the question examined was in relation to
the appointment to the post of Munsif by the Karnataka
Public Service Commission. The Court held that if the High
Court was satisfied that the persons, who were occupying
the post were appointed contrary to the Rules, the High
Court could set aside the proceedings of the Commission
and direct preparation of fresh list according to law but
could not direct to include the name of the six petitioners
only because they applied to the Court. The relevant extract
read as under:—
“10. It may at once be observed that the order
passed by the High Court cannot in any view of the case be
sustained. The High Court could, if it held that the
notification issued by the Commission and the appointments
made by the State pursuant thereto were made in violation
of the statutory rules, quash the list but the High Court
could not direct that the names of six persons merely
because they had applied for setting aside the list of
candidates selected for promotion be incorporated in that
list. The direction made by the High Court was in the nature
of mandamus. Such a direction could be issued against a
person or body to compel the performance of a public duty
imposed upon it by law-statutory or common. The
commission is undoubtedly a body constituted pursuant to
the provisions of the Constitution and has to exercise
powers and perform functions entrusted to it by the Rules
framed under Art. 309. But the order which the High Court
made was not for compelling performance of its duty
imposed upon the Commission by statute or common law. If
the High Court came to the conclusion that the proceeding
of the Commission was vitiated on account of some
irregularity or illegality, it could declare the proceeding void.
The High Court however held that the orders including
respondents 4 to 13 to the petitions in the list of persons
eligible for appointment should be allowed to stand,
because the petitioners in the petitions before it did not
http://www.judis.nic.in
insist on the issue of a writ of quo warranto. If the High
12
Court was satisfied on an application specifically made in
that behalf that the persons who were occupying posts to
which they were appointed contrary to the rules governing
the appointment and consequently were not competent to
occupy the posts, it is difficult to appreciate the ground on
which the High Court would be justified in declining to pass
appropriate orders. Either the High Court could set aside the
proceeding of the Commission and direct preparation of a
fresh list according to law, or the High Court could dismiss
the petitions because in its view the list was regularly
prepared. But the order passed by the High Court
maintaining the inclusion of respondents 4 to 13 in the list
and then directing the Commission to include the names of
the six petitioners in the list merely because they had
applied to the High Court is without authority.”
Narendra Singh Thakur vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 July, 2018
In another judgment reported as (1969) 3 SCC
489 (Thakur Birendra Singh v. The State of M.P.), the Court
held that the High Court could have quashed the orders but
the High Court was not sitting in appeal over the decision of
the Board of Revenue. Once the orders complained of are
quashed, the matter should have been left at large without
any further direction leaving the Revenue Authorities free to
take any steps.
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
37. The scope of power of judicial review has also
been examined in a judgment reported as (1994) 6 SCC
651 (Tata Cellular v. Union of India), the Supreme Court
held as under:—
“74. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not
the merits of the decision in support of which the application
for judicial review is made, but the decision-making process
itself.
Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Chief Executive Officer, Noida & Ors. ... on 29 April, 2014
In R. v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, exp in
Guinness plc (1989) 1 All ER 509, Lord Donaldson, M.R.
referred to the judicial review jurisdiction as being
supervisory or ‘longstop’ jurisdiction. Unless that restriction
on the power of the court is observed, the court will, under
the guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty
http://www.judis.nic.in of usurping power.
R. Pandian And Anothera. Deivendran Son ... vs State Of Tamil Naduthrough The ... on 21 October, 1997
The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule
out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a
matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home
Department, ex Brind (1991) 1 ACR 696, Lord Diplock
refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible
recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these
cases the test to be adopted is that the court should,
“consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature
and degree which requires its intervention”.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. vs Abhijit Singh Pawar on 26 November, 2018
13. Even recently, the three judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs Abhijit Sing
Pawar reported in 2018 (6) CTC 659 held that even after the
disclosure is made by a candidate, the Employer would be well within his
rights to consider the antecedent and the suitability of the candidate.
Nitin Pathak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 November, 2017
In view of the law laid down in above said judgments,
there is no doubt that in exercise of power of judicial review
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court
only examines the decision-making process and does not
substitute itself as a Court of appeal over the reasons
recorded by the State Government. We find that the
decision of the State Government holding that the petitioner
is not suitable, is just, fair and reasonable keeping in view
the nature of the post and the duties to be discharged.