Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)Section 58 in The Gujarat University Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
The Gujarat University Act, 1949
State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors vs Harish Chandra Singh on 17 January, 1969
The submission
was canvassed that the proviso to Section 56 is unambiguously clear
to indicate that the vacancy if to be filled-in by election is not to
be filled-in by election if the terms ends within six months.. The
learned counsel for the University, thereafter, relied upon the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Harish
Chandra and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 2173 and in the case of
State of West Bengal vs. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee & Ors. reported
in AIR 2010 SC 2927 in support of his submission. The decision to
hold election of the Court is already taken and it is notified to all
that the election would be held on 28.11.2010, which would go to show
that even if there is a mandamus issued today, the entire mandamus
and any exercised made there under would be in futility as the
petitioner who has merely right to contest election will not get the
term, even if she is elected for longer tenure, than few days only.
The peculiar facts of this case, therefore, may persuade the Court
not to issue any direction which may not, in fact, help the
petitioner in any manner or cause inconvenience to the State or the
instrumentality, namely the University in the present case.
Dir. Of Settlements, A.P. & Ors vs M.R. Apparao & Anr on 20 March, 2002
7. Learned
counsel for the University contended that this Court, in peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case, may not issue any
mandamus as, at the best, the petitioner can be said to be agitating
her statutory right flowing from the statute called Gujarat
University Act,1949 and under the very same statute the provision of
section 56 makes it incumbent upon the University not to fill up the
vacancy if its required to be filled up by holding election and if it
arises within six months period preceding date on which the term of
such member ends. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and 2
invited this Court's attention to Section 56 along with its proviso
and relying upon the said Section and it's proviso, submission was
made that the Court may not issue futile direction as the elections
to the very Court have been announced as the term of Court is going
to end within a short period, namely, by 6.12.2010. Learned counsel
for the University, in support of the contention with regard to
non-issuances of writ in such a situation, relied upon the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Director of Settlements, A.P. and
others vs. M.R. Apparao and another reported in AIR 2002 SC 1598 and
reliance was also placed in respect of the observation of the Apex
Court that the Court will have to take into consideration the right,
existing and/or subsisting on the date when the mandamus is required
to be issued.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of West Bengal vs Subhas Kumar Chatterjee & Ors on 17 August, 2010
The submission
was canvassed that the proviso to Section 56 is unambiguously clear
to indicate that the vacancy if to be filled-in by election is not to
be filled-in by election if the terms ends within six months.. The
learned counsel for the University, thereafter, relied upon the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. vs. Harish
Chandra and others reported in AIR 1996 SC 2173 and in the case of
State of West Bengal vs. Subhas Kumar Chatterjee & Ors. reported
in AIR 2010 SC 2927 in support of his submission. The decision to
hold election of the Court is already taken and it is notified to all
that the election would be held on 28.11.2010, which would go to show
that even if there is a mandamus issued today, the entire mandamus
and any exercised made there under would be in futility as the
petitioner who has merely right to contest election will not get the
term, even if she is elected for longer tenure, than few days only.
The peculiar facts of this case, therefore, may persuade the Court
not to issue any direction which may not, in fact, help the
petitioner in any manner or cause inconvenience to the State or the
instrumentality, namely the University in the present case.
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Ramdeo Yadav & Ors on 26 February, 1996
The learned counsel for the University, thereafter,
relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of
Bihar and others vs. Ramdeo Yadav and others reported in AIR 1996 SC
3135, especially paragraphs 8,9 and 10 of the judgment and submitted
that the writ of mandamus could not be issued contrary to the
provisions of law or which may have effect of directing the
authorities to act contrary to the provisions of law.
Section 65 in The Gujarat University Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
1