Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.34 seconds)Section 5 in The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 [Entire Act]
Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 May, 2009
Eighthly, relying on the case of Villianur Iyarkkai
Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India5, the learned Advocate
General has further pleaded that normally there is a
presumption that a Government action is a reasonable one, and
is in public interest. Therefore, a heavy burden lies on the party
challenging the validity of a Government policy decision. It is for
the party to establish that the policy decision is either
unreasonable, or is not in public interest. Such a burden has to
be discharged to the satisfaction of the Court by proper and
adequate material. For, the Courts cannot presume ipsi dixit
that a policy decision taken by the Government is unreasonable,
or against public interest.
G.Krishnamurthy vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 4 December, 2018
Tenthly , relying on the case of Dr. G. Krishnamurthy vs.
Chief Secretary to Government, Tamil Nadu7, the learned
Advocate General submits that the issue before the Madras
High Court was with regard to a PIL which had challenged the
shifting of the State Secretariat from Omandurar Estate, Anna
Salia, Chennai, to its previous place, viz., Fort St. George,
Chennai. A learned Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of
Madras had clearly opined that Public Interest Litigations are
not meant for serving political purpose, or solving political
problem. Political problem ought to be solved through political
process, and not through judicial process. The concept of public
interest litigation is restricted to safeguarding the interests, and
welfare of the poor people, and not to decide the propriety of the
7
(2011) 4 CTC 113
15
policy decision of the Government. In fact, it is for the
Government to decide as to which building shall be comfortable
for the purpose of establishing the State Secretariat. If the
Government takes a policy decision to run the Secretariat from
the old buildings, the Court cannot issue a direction to the
Government to change the decision.
Janhit Manch Through Its President ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 December, 2018
In the case of the Janhit Manch (supra) the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has already opined that it is not for the
petitioners to decide about the adequacy of infrastructure, or
even for the location of the infrastructure. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-
Balco Employees Union (Regd.) vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 December, 2001
Therefore, the Court should be weary of
interfering with economic policies. Furthermore, the courts do
not sit as court of appeals over policy decisions. [Ref. to BALCO
EMPLOYEES' UNION (REGD.) V. UNION OF INDIA (2002) 2
SCC 333].
Article 282 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Brij Mohan Lal vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 May, 2002
In the
case of Brij Mohan Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
opined as under:-