Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 3 December, 2002
Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. & Ors: (2003) 2
SCC 111).
S. G. Jaisinghani vs Union Of India And Ors.(With Connected ... on 22 February, 1967
18. The Constitution Bench in S.G. Jaisinghhani vs. Union of
India & Ors: AIR 1967 SC 1427 held that the absence of arbitrary power is
the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole judicial system is
based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon
executive authorities, must be continued within clearly defined limits.
Delhi Jal Board vs Mahinder Singh on 1 September, 2000
19. The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right
under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. (Ref:- (i) Delhi Jal Board vs.
Page 17 of 20
Mahinder Singh: (2000) 7 SCC 210 & (ii) Badrinath vs. Government of
Tamil Nadu: (2000) 8 SCC 395.
Comptroller And Auditor General Of ... vs K.S. Jagannathan & Anr on 1 April, 1986
In
Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. K.S.
Jagannathan; (1986) 2 SCC 679 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 345 such
a power on the part of this Court was accepted by a three-
Judge Bench.
Dwarka Nath vs Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle ... on 29 March, 1965
Madon, J. referred to the observations of Subba
Rao, J. (as he then was) in Dwarka Nath v. ITO; AIR 1966 SC
81 : (1965) 3 SCR 536 wherein the learned Judge explained
that our Constitution designedly used wide language in Article
226 to enable the Courts to "reach justice wherever found
necessary" and "to mould the reliefs to meet peculiar and
complicated requirements of this country."
Transmission Corp.Of A.P Ltd. & Anr vs Sai R.P.Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 8 July, 2010
Justice Madon also
referred to Rochester Corpn. v. R; 1858 EB & E 1024 : 27 LJ
QB 434, R. v. Revising Barrister for the Borough of Hanley;
(1912) 3 KB 518 : 81 LJ KB 1152, Padfield v. Minister of
Agriculture Fisheries and Food; 1968 AC 997 : (1968) 1 All
ER 694 : (1968) 2 WLR 924 (HL) and to a passage from
Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn. Vol. 1, p. 59. Finally
Madon, J. observed: (SCC pp. 692-93, para 20)
"20. There is thus doubt that the High Courts in India
exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 have the
Page 18 of 20
power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature
of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary
directions where the Government or a public authority
has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the
discretion conferred upon exercised such discretion
mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring
the relevant consideration and materials or in such a
manner as implementing which such discretion has been
conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and
proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of the
nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions
to compel the performance in a proper and lawful
manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government
or a public authority, and in a proper case in order to
prevent injustice resulting to the parties concerned, the
court may itself pass an order or give directions which
the Government or the public authority should have
passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its
discretion."
B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India And Ors on 1 November, 1995
(emphasis supplied)
We emphasis the words underlined in the above passage to the
effect that the court may in some rare situations itself pass on
order or give directions which the Government or the public
authority should have passed or given had it properly and
lawfully exercised its discretion. The same view was expressed
by another three-Judge Bench in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of
India; (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SSC (L&S) 80 : (1996) 32
ATC 44 even regarding disciplinary cases. ..... "
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Hukam Chand Shyam Lal vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 December, 1975
16. It is well settled law that where a power is required to be
exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in
that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily
forbidden. It is all the more necessary to observe this rule where power is of
a drastic nature and its exercise in a mode other than the one provided will
be violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice. (Ref:-Hukam
Chand Shyam Lal vs. Union of India and Ors: AIR 1976 SC 789).