Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.97 seconds)
Lgw Limited & Another vs The State Of West Bengal & Others on 6 November, 2008 cites

Common Cause, A Registered Society vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 August, 1999

The Minister-in-charge concerned or the Chief Minister could not have discretionary power to distribute plots of land in Salt Lake area whimsically and without framing any rules or guidelines. Arbitrary exercise of discretionary power cannot be permitted by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause, A Registered Society vs. Union of India and Others reported in AIR 1996 SC 3538 are very much relevant in this regard and the same are also set out hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 105 - Cited by 756 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979

25. This Court as back as in 1979 in Ramana Shetty's case (AIR 1979 SC 1628) (supra) held 'it must, therefore, be taken to be the law............' that even in the matter of grant of largesses including award of jobs, contracts, quotas and licences, the Government must act in fair and just manner and any arbitrary distribution of wealth would be violative of the law of the land. Mr. Satish Sharma has acted in utter violation of the law laid down by this Court and has also infracted Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As already stated a minister in the Central Government is in a position of a trustee in respect of the public property under his charge and discretion. The petrol pumps/gas agencies are a kind of wealth which the Government must distribute in a bona fide manner and in conformity with law. Capt. Satish Sharma has betrayed the trust reposed in him by the people under the Constitution......................................."
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2519 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

V. Punnen Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 1 April, 1968

"12. We agree with the observations of Mathew, J., in V. Punnan Thomas v. State of Kerala, AIR 1969 Ker 81 (FB) that: 'The Government, is not and should be as free as an individual in selecting the recipients for its largess. Whatever its activity, the Government is still the Government and will be subject to restraints, inherent in its position in a democratic society. A democratic Government cannot lay down arbitrary and capricious standards for the choice of persons with whom alone it will deal'............................................................It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largess, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largess including award of jobs, contracts quotas, licences etc. must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory."
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 88 - Full Document

Tarak Singh & Anr vs Jyoti Basu & Ors on 19 November, 2004

The learned Single Judge has also referred to and relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarak Singh & another vs. Jyoti Basu & Others reported in (2005) 1 SCC 201, which, in our opinion, is not at all applicable in the facts of the present case as the appellants herein have undisputedly applied for a plot of land in the Salt Lake area pursuant to an advertisement published in the daily newspaper.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 27 - Full Document
1