Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.50 seconds)Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978
Now coming to the test of reasonableness which pervades the
constitutional scheme, this Court in several cases
particularly with reference to Articles 14, 19 and 21 has
considered this concept of reasonableness and has held that
the same finds its positive manifestation and expression in
the lofty ideal of social and economic justice which
inspires and animates the Directive Principles and that
Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action. (vide
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR 621 and E.P.
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. f 1974 12 SCR 348.
E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973
Now coming to the test of reasonableness which pervades the
constitutional scheme, this Court in several cases
particularly with reference to Articles 14, 19 and 21 has
considered this concept of reasonableness and has held that
the same finds its positive manifestation and expression in
the lofty ideal of social and economic justice which
inspires and animates the Directive Principles and that
Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action. (vide
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 SCR 621 and E.P.
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. f 1974 12 SCR 348.
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. vs Vijay Bahadur Singh And Ors. on 23 March, 1982
(emphasis supplied)
In State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Vijay Bahadur Singh
and others [1982] 2 SCC 365 this Court considered the
circumstances under which the Government is not always bound
to accept the highest bid offered in a public auction under
which a contract was to be awarded to fell trees and exploit
forest produce and held as under:
State Of Orissa And Ors vs Harinarayan Jaiswal And Ors on 14 March, 1972
(emphasis supplied)
In State of Orissa and Ors. v. Harinarayan Jaiswal and Ors.
[1972] 3 SCR 784 it was observed as under:
G.B. Mahajan And Ors vs Jalgaon Municipal Council And Ors on 13 September, 1990
emphasis supplied)
In G.B. Mahajan and others v. Jalgaon Municipal Council and
others [1991] 3 SCC 91 it was observed thus:
India Cement Ltd. Etc vs Union Of India And Others on 21 August, 1990
In India Cement Ltd. and others v. Union of India and
others[1990] 4SCC 356 a question arose whether the fixation
of Rs. 100 per tonne of cement as the uniform retention
price for the entire industry with the exception of M/s
Travancore Cement Ltd. was rational and reasonable. This
Court held as under:
R.K. Garg Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 October, 1981
In R.K. Garg v. Union of India, [1981]4 SCC 675, a
Constitution Bench of this Court observed as under:
Peerless General Finance And ... vs Reserve Bank Of India on 30 January, 1992
The learned counsel for these three big manufacturers,
however, relied on various decision in Amarjit Singh
Ahluwalia v. The State of Punjab & Ors. [1975] 3 SCR 82,
Ramana Dayaram Shetty's case and Peerless General Finance
and Investment Co. Limited's case (supra) and contended
that failure to follow the existing procedure resulting in
denial of a right directly arising out of legitimate
expectation is per se arbitrary and unreasonable and
therefore illegal and consequently violative of Article 14
of the constitution.