Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr vs Chief Distt. Medical Officer, Baripada ... on 19 February, 1992
In the case of Baikuntha Nath Das And Anr
vs Chief Distt.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.51 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sarvepalli Ramaiah (D) Tr.Lrs vs District Collector Chittoor Dist. . on 14 March, 2019
In the case of Sarvepalli Ramaiah (D) through LRs vs
District Collector Chittoor Dist. (supra), Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that administrative decisions are
subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India only on the grounds of perversity,
illegality, irrationality, want of power to take decision, and
judicial review is directed against the decision-making
process.
M/S Shanti Conductors(P) Ltd. & Anr vs Assam State Electricity Board & Ors on 31 August, 2016
35. The respondent has placed reliance upon the judgment in
the case M/s Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. vs. Assam
Electricity Board and Ors. (supra), wherein Hon'ble
Supreme Court has considered a review petition on various
grounds, including legal grounds, and dismissed the same.
Article 235 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Manoharmal vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 18 May, 2009
4. He further referred to the post facto approval by the High
Power Committee and the State Government and submitted
that, after taking a decision in accordance with Rule 53(1) of
the Rules of 1996, the DGP, Rajasthan Police, has sent a
proposal for post facto approval, and the same was granted
on 26.04.2006, but the Tribunal has not considered the post
facto approval as the appeal was decided several years after
the post facto approval. He placed reliance upon the
judgment in the case of Chandra Singh and Ors. vs. State
of Rajasthan and Anr., reported as (2003) 6 SCC 545.
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Rajasthan And Anr vs Sripal Jain on 24 January, 1963
In the case of State of Rajasthan and others vs. Shripal
Jain (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the
power of the Inspector General of Police in relation to the
order of compulsory retirement of a police inspector and,
while allowing the appeal of the State Government, has held
that compulsory retirement is provided under two
categories, one as a penalty and another not as a
punishment.
Article 310 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath on 27 October, 1993
He also referred to the judgment in
the case of S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath
1994 SCC (1) 1 and submitted that the department has not
only played a fraud but misrepresented the case of
respondent, while passing an order in breach of circular
dated 30.04.2002, to compulsorily retire the respondent
from service. He also submitted that the IGP is not a
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 05:34:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/03/2026 at 09:04:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:13020] (5 of 18) [CW-2455/2022]
competent authority to take a decision about the service
record of the respondent and the decision made by the IGP
is per se illegal. He also referred and placed reliance upon
the findings recorded by the Tribunal and submitted that,
considering the action of the IGP, exemplary cost has been
awarded against him. At last, he submitted that the Tribunal
has jurisdiction to consider the case of the respondent, as
compulsory retirement is not a punishment.