Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani vs State Of Gujarat on 7 December, 2018
by the petitioner dated 30.01.2024 for grant of NA permission
afresh strictly in accordance with law and strictly in
accordance with the observations of this Court in case of
Tusharbhai Ghelani (Supra). Such decision shall be taken by
the Collector within a period of 90 days from the date of
receipt of this order.
State Of U.P. And Anr vs Johri Mal on 21 April, 2004
In State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714 :
Devi Prasad Pandey vs State Of Chhattisgarh 47 Wps/3588/2019 ... on 10 May, 2019
In Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. (VI) Vs. Union of India & Anr.,
(2006) SCC 1, wherein a proclamation issued under Article 356
was under challenge, Arijit Pasayat, J. observed thus:
Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs Anilbhai Jayantibhai Patel And Ors on 11 September, 2006
In the case of Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel Vs. Anilbhai
Jayanitbhai Patel and Ors., 2006 (3) GLH 226, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Para 18 observed as under:-
Ganesh Bank, Kurundwad Ltd. And Ors vs The Union Of India And Ors on 28 August, 2006
In the case of Ganesh Bank of Kurundwad Ltd. and others Vs.
Union of India and others, (2006) 10 SCC 645, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Paras 50 and 51 observed as under:-
State Of U.P. And Ors vs Renusagar Power Co. And Others on 28 July, 1988
51."13 One of the points that falls for determination is the
scope for judicial interference in matters of administrative
decisions. Administrative action is stated to be referable to
broad area of Governmental activities in which the
repositories of power may exercise every class of statutory
function of executive, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial
nature. It is trite law that exercise of power, whether
legislative or administrative, will be set aside if there is
manifest error in the exercise of such power or the exercise
of the power is manifestly arbitrary (See State of U.P. and
Ors. v. Renusagar Power Co., (1988) 4 SCC 59 : AIR 1988
SC 1737. At one time, the traditional view in England was
that the executive was not answerable where its action was
attributable to the exercise of prerogative power. Professor
De Smith in his classical work "Judicial Review of
Administrative Action" 4th Edition at pages 285-287 states the
legal position in his own terse language that the relevant
principles formulated by the Courts may be broadly
summarized as follows. The authority in which discretion is
vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to
exercise it in any particular manner. In general, discretion must
be exercised only by the authority to which it is committed.
That authority must genuinely address itself to the matter
before it; it must not act under the dictates of another body or
disable itself from exercising discretion in each individual case.
In the purported exercise of its discretion, it must not do what
it has been forbidden to do, nor must it do what it has not
been authorized to do. It must act in good faith, must have
regard to all relevant considerations and must not be influenced
by irrelevant considerations, must not seek to promote
purposes alien to the letter or to the spirit of the legislation
that gives it power to act, and must not act arbitrarily or
capriciously. These several principles can conveniently be
grouped in two main categories: (I) failure to exercise a
discretion, and (ii) excess or abuse of discretionary power.
The two classes are not, however, mutually exclusive. Thus,
discretion may be improperly fettered because irrelevant
Page 10 of 20
Uploaded by Y.N. VYAS(HC00207) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 05:25:05 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/993/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2025
undefined
considerations have been taken into account, and where an
authority hands over its discretion to another body it acts ultra
vires.
Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bombay And ... vs Mahindra And Mahindra Limited & Ors on 2 September, 1983
(See CIT v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.
[(1983) 4 SCC 392 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 336 : AIR 1984 SC 1182].
The effect of several decisions on the question of jurisdiction
has been summed up by Grahame Aldous and John Alder in
their book "Applications for Judicial Review, Law and
Practice" thus:
Union Of India & Another vs G. Ganayutham on 27 August, 1997
21. These principles have been noted in aforesaid terms in Union of
India v. G. Ganayutham [(1997) 7 SCC 463 : 1997 SCC (L&S)
1806]. In essence, the test is to see whether there is any infirmity
in the decision making process and not in the decision itself. (See
Indian Rly.
Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd vs Ajay Kumar on 27 February, 2003
35. Section 65 of the Code, referred to above, on its plain
reading, do not provide for any scope of raising objection by any
party who is yet to establish its right in his favour over the land
in question. In other words, the proceedings under section 65 of
the Code is not an adversary proceeding at all.