Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (2.29 seconds)
Sayyad Zafar Aminoddin Sayyad Hussain vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 30 September, 2019 cites

Kesharben Murji Patel vs State Of Maharashtra And 7 Ors on 2 April, 2019

17. Learned counsel Mr. Golegaonkar refers to and purports to rely on decision of division bench of this court dated 02-04-2019 in group of writ petitions bearing no. 181 of 2018 (Kesharben Murji Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) and connected writ petitions, wherein the disqualifcation incurred by the petitioners in writ petitions no. 147 of 2018 and 3673 of 2018 had been stalled during pendency of writ petitions, and while scrutiny committee's decisions invalidating claim of petitioners were quashed remitting the matters back to the scrutiny committee for re-consideration, the relief was directed to be continued. In the case of respondent no. 5 as well decision of scrutiny committee had been quashed, remitting the matter for reconsideration. The committee as a matter of fact on remand has validated the claim of respondent no. 5 as from Julaha other backward class community. For him, situation is much better than petitioners in those cases and as such, urges not to unsettle the prevailing position.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 4 - B Dangre - Full Document

Rajesh Awasthi vs Nand Lal Jaiswal & Ors on 19 October, 2012

24. Supreme court in Rajesh Awasthi V. Nand Lal Jaiswal and others reported in AIR 2013 SC 78 has observed, thus, ::: Uploaded on - 19/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/04/2020 08:37:32 ::: 19 WP-10401-2017 " 28. From the aforesaid pronouncements it is graphically clear that a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto and he stands in the position of a relater. He need not have any special interest or personal interest. The real test is to see whether the person holding the office is authorised to hold the same as per law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 103 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Cen.Elect.Supply Utility Of Odisha vs Dhobei Sahoo & Ors on 1 November, 2013

25. Supreme court, in its decision in the case of Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha V. Dhobei Sahoo and others reported in AIR 2014 SC 246 in paragraph 18 has observed, thus, " 18. From the aforesaid exposition of law it is clear as noon day that the jurisdiction of the High Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto is a limited one and can only be issued when the person holding the public office lacks the eligibility criteria or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. That apart, the concept of locus standi which is strictly applicable to service jurisprudence for the purpose of canvassing the legality or correctness of the action should not be allowed to have any entry, for such allowance is likely to exceed the limits of quo warranto which is impermissible. The basic purpose of a writ of quo warranto is to confer jurisdiction on the constitutional courts to see that a public office is not held by usurper without any legal authority. While dealing with the writ of quo warranto another aspect has to be kept in view. Sometimes a contention is raised pertaining to doctrine of delay and laches in filing a writ of quo warranto. There is a difference pertaining to personal interest or individual interest on one hand and an interest by a citizen as a relator to the court on the other. The principle of doctrine of delay and laches should not be allowed any play because the person holds the public office as a usurper and such continuance is to be prevented by the court. The Court is required to see that the larger public interest and the basic concept pertaining to good governance are not thrown to the winds."
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 162 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 Next