Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)
All Bengal Rickshaw Union & Ors. vs State Of West Bengal & Ors. on 14 December, 1999 cites

State Transport Authority, W.B. And ... vs Asis Kumar Roy And Others on 12 January, 1995

25. Mr. Sarkar has cited various decisions to establish his case. First of all, he relied upon 100 CWN 591 = 1997(1) CLJ 165 (State Transport Authority & Ors. v. Ashts Kr. Roy & Ors.) and stated that the High Court can, in the exercise of its Jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of Mandamus or pass order or 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 concerned parties. The Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia vs Additional Member, Board Of Revenue, ... on 19 October, 1962

32. Apart therefrom it is a factual position that grievances were raised by the association before the authority concerned and correspondences were exchanged by or between the Office-bearers of the association and authority concerned. Therefore, under these circumstances too, the very foundation of the question of technicality as agitated by the respondent Is, in fact, not sustainable. Therefore, this Court is unable to accept such contention of the maintainability as agitated by the respondent herein, in this respect it is also pertinent to mention that this is not the first writ petition before the court but. under similar circumstances a writ petition was moved by the petitioners in the earlier occasion before this Hon'ble Court and upon hearing the parties such writ petition being W.P. No. 3262 of 1998 was disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner of Police, respondent No.3 to consider the contentions thereon after giving the opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. Learned counsel cited a Judgment (Udit Narayan Singh Mal Paharia v. Additional Member of Board of revenue, Bihar & Anr.) and relying upon the paragraph 9 therein made the similar submission which need not reiterated by this Court to avoid the prolixity.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 470 - Full Document

Krishnan Kakkanth vs Government Of Kerala And Ors. on 7 February, 1996

34. The next point, as he agitated about interference of the Court with the policy decision. On that score, he relied upon a judgment (Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala & Ors.) and relying upon head note 5 therein contended that assertion of unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out of wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is Immaterial if a better or more comprehensive policy decision would have been taken. It is clearly Immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy decision is otherwise or is gradually to defeat the purpose for which such decision has been taken unless the policy decision is demonstratively capricious or arbitrary and not informed by a reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any Statute of provisions of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be struck down. It should be borne in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a public policy in the context of illegality and unconstitutionality, Court should avoid embarking on uncharted ocean of public policy.
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 43 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1