Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.32 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 5 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.& Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 2008
In the case of Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills
Company Limited vs. Union of India, AIR 2009 SC
792, which is relied upon by learned Senior
advocate Mr.Shelat, the following relevant
paragraphs are required to be reproduced as
Page 56 of 65
Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 06:36:37 IST 2020
C/SCA/2053/2020 JUDGMENT
under:
"65. We are of the opinion that the same
principle should be applied herein.
Pepper (Inspector Of Taxes) vs Hart And Others. on 13 November, 1990
In this regard, we may refer to the
decision of the House of Lords in the matter
of R.V. National Asylum Support Service
[(2002) 1 W.L.R.2956] and its interpretation
of the decision in Pepper v. Hart [(1993)
A.C. 593]. on the question of 'executive
estoppel'. In the former decision, Lord Steyn
stated:
"If exceptionally there is found in the
Explanatory Notes a clear assurance by the
executive to Parliament about the meaning of
a clause, or the circumstances in which a
power will or will not be used, that
assurance may in principle be admitted
against the executive in proceedings in which
the executive places a contrary contention
before a court.""
Aparna @ Vibha Shukla & Others vs State Of U.P. & Others on 12 January, 2010
46. It is to be noted that here it is not even
the case where a statute or the provisions of
Page 57 of 65
Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 06:36:37 IST 2020
C/SCA/2053/2020 JUDGMENT
the statue that are being read down, but this
is an advertisement, which, at the best, could
be termed as an executive policy. The decision
of Allahabad High Court decided on 27.05.2020 in
the case of Abha Shukla and others vs. State of
U.P and others, was relying on the prescription
of minimum qualification for admission to the
course and other qualifications relating to the
recognition of domicile certificate issued by
District Magistrate/ Additional District
Magistrate/ SubDivisional Magistrate of the
District, where the Court held that it is for
the Court to determine whether prescribed
qualification should or should not be
recognised, In an appropriate case the Court
could examine whether dealing with the matter is
based on fair, rational and reasoned ground,
where the decision has been taken on
consideration of relevant aspects of the matter
and where exercise of power has been regarded as
mala fide and where the decision saves time for
appropriate training to the candidates or it is
based on irrational or irrelevant consideration
Page 58 of 65
Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 06:36:37 IST 2020
C/SCA/2053/2020 JUDGMENT
or group of candidates.
Ramesh Chandra Shah & Ors vs Anil Joshi & Ors on 3 April, 2013
48. The last decision of the Apex Court in the
case Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil
Joshi and others decided on 03.04.2013 in Civil
Page 59 of 65
Downloaded on : Sun Jun 14 06:36:37 IST 2020
C/SCA/2053/2020 JUDGMENT
Appeal No.2802 to 2804 of 2013 , sought to be
relied upon by the respondent requires
consideration where the Court has laid the
preposition that by having taken part in the
process of selection with full knowledge that
the recruitment was being made under the General
Rules, the respondents had waived their right to
question the advertisement or the methodology
adopted by the Board for making selection and
the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
of the High Court committed grave error by
entertaining the grievance made by the
respondents.
Chandigarh Housing Board And Another vs Gurmit Singh on 9 January, 2002
52. The last but not the least, necessary would
be the reference of Article 5 of PartII of the
Constitution of India, under the heading of
Citizenship, which says that at the commencement
of this Constitution, every person, who has his
domicile in the territory of India and who was
born in the territory of India or either who was
born in the territory of India or who has been
ordinarily resident in the territory of India
for not less than 05 years immediately preceding
such a commencement, shall be a citizen of
India. Thus, every person, who has his domicile
in the territory of India at the commencement of
the Constitution or is borne in the territory of
India is a citizen of this country. All the
petitioners are citizens of this country.
Applying the popular meaning of the expression
"Domicile" as per the Apex Court's decision in
case of Chandhigarh Hsng. Board vs. Gurmit
Singh, 2002 (2) SCC 29 means the person
has a permanent home or he being there for years
with an intention to live permanently or
indefinitely under the Indian Constitution.