State Of U.P. & Ors vs Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh Etc on 17 January, 1989
In State of U.P. v. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh ,
the Supreme Court held :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil vs Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia And Ors on 17 December, 2003
In Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai
M. Kamalia and others the Supreme Court reiterated :
Commissioner Of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji on 23 November, 1951
26. It is also well settled that if any decision is taken by a
statutory authority at the behest or on the suggestion of a
person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be
ultra vires. (See Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji and
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr.
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
26. It is also well settled that if any decision is taken by a
statutory authority at the behest or on the suggestion of a
person who has no statutory role to play, the same would be
ultra vires. (See Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji and
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr.
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs India Carbon Ltd. And Ors. on 21 June, 1996
The decision
in Guwahati Carbon Limited (7 supra) indicates that there can be
other circumstances where Writ Petition can be entertained not
withstanding the existence of an alternative remedy.
Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 August, 2013
31. This has also been reiterated in CIT vs. Chhabil Dass
Agarwal . In that case, the Court held
Harbanslal Sahnia And Anr. vs Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. And Ors. on 20 December, 2002
In Harbanslal
Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., the Supreme Court has indicated
other situations where Writ Petition can be entertained even though
there is an alternative remedy by declaring:
Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors on 26 October, 1998
7. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the
alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ
jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ
petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii)
where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii)
where the orders or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. (See Whirlpool
Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998(8) SCC 1)