Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.56 seconds)Section 12 in The National Food Security Act, 2013 [Entire Act]
Swaraj Abhiyan vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 May, 2016
44. These questions have been troubling us since
this matter was listed on 24102016 subsequent to
our order dated 1352016 in Swaraj Abhiyan
(II) [Swaraj Abhiyan (2) v. Union of India, (2016) 7
SCC 498 : (2016) 7 SCC 534 : AIR 2016 SC 2953] .
Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh Tahsil ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 25 August, 1981
23. This Court in Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh v. State of
M.P.6 has held that no person can claim a right to run a fair price
shop as an agent of the government and he could only have a right
6 (1981) 4 SCC 471
14
to be considered for appointment. In this context, this Court
observed as follows:
Thakur Amar Singhji vs State Of Rajasthan(And Other ... on 15 April, 1955
This Court has settled this principle in a catena of judgments,
15
starting as early as 1955. A Constitution Bench of this Court in
Thakur Amar Singhji v. State of Rajasthan7 held as follows:
M/S. Electronics Corporation Of India ... vs Secretary,Revenue Dept,Govt.Of ... on 5 May, 1999
10 (2001) 2 SCC 62
17
mere applicant in an unfinalised selection process, has no vested
right in his favour to seek continuation of the notified vacancies,
when by recalling the vacancy notification, the appellants
endeavored to enforce the statute. Moreover, as discussed above,
there can be no estoppel against a statute. Even going by the
observations of the Division Bench in the impugned judgment, that
the State was aware of the 2013 Act while issuing the 30.01.2014
vacancy notification, the said notification cannot be sustained, be
ing contrary to the mandate of the National Food Security Act,
2013, more importantly of Section 12 thereof as held in A.P. Dairy
Development Corpn. Federation (supra).
A.P. Pollution Control Board Ii vs Prof.M.V. Nayudu (Retd.)And Ors on 1 December, 2000
28. It is clear that this Court in several judgments has also upheld
that the plea of promissory estoppel would stand negated when the
mandate of a statute is followed. This Court in A.P. Pollution Con
trol Board II v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu & ors.10, held as under:
Punjab Communications Ltd vs Union Of India & Others on 4 May, 1999
In Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India
and Ors.1 this Court held that policy decision creating the
legitimate expectation which is normally binding on the decision
maker, can be changed by the decision maker in overriding public
interest. It was held as under: