Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.34 seconds)
Sanjay Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 June, 2014 cites

Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union ... vs Union Of India And Others on 13 November, 1980

23. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (supra), will have no application in the facts of the present case, where actually the issue was as with regard to Public Interest Litigation and the right of the common people to raise a issue relating to public enterprises. As a matter of fact even the case of People‟s Union for Democratic rights (supra), was with regard to violation of Labour Law made for the welfare of the workman and therefore, whatever was said as with regard to maintainability of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was again in the context of Public Interest Litigation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 539 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra ... on 31 March, 2006

This Court in fact has also failed to appreciate as to how the ratio of Sant Dnyaneshwsar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya (supra) can be made applicable, inasmuch as the issue involved in that case was with regard to recognition of the institution offering course in Teachers Training and education and the question of locus standi in fact was not decided and 25 left open vide paragraph 81 of the judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 386 - C K Thakker - Full Document

Raju Ramsing Vasave vs Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors on 29 August, 2008

He has further referred to and relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of People‟s Union for Democratic rights & ors. v. Union of India & ors., reported in (1982)3 SCC 235, in the case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India & ors., reported in (1981)1 SCC 568, in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & ors., reported in (2006)9 SCC1, in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapuprkar & ors., reported in (2008)9 SCC 54 and in the case of Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2011(2) PLJR 1051.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 260 - S B Sinha - Full Document

International Airport Authority Of ... vs K.D. Bali & Another on 29 March, 1988

21. A question, therefore, would be what is the petitioner doing if he is not eligible for becoming a Member of the Search Committee or is a candidate for the post of Vice Chancellor or he himself said that he is not concerned with the said appointment. It, thus, becomes clear that the petitioner has got no locus standi to even assail the nomination of respondent no.9 as a Member of the Search Committee. To that extent the reliance placed by Mr. Lalit Kishore on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of D. Nagaraj (supra) is apt and appropriate, wherein it was held as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 144 - S Mukharji - Full Document

B.R. Shankaranarayana & Ors vs State Of Mysore & Ors on 21 January, 1966

"7. The sole question that requires to be determined in these appeal is whether the appellants could maintain the aforesaid writ petitions. It is well settled that though Article 226 of the Constitution in terms does not describe the classes of persons entitled to apply thereunder, the existence of the right is implicit for the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction by the High Court under the said Article. It is also well established that a person who is not aggrieved by the discrimination complained of cannot maintain a writ petition. The constitutional validity of the Abolition Act abolishing all hereditary village offices including the office 23 of the Shambogue or Village Accountant having been upheld by this Court in B.R.Shankaranarayana v. State of Mysore (AIR 1966 SC 1571) (supra) and the first preference in the matter of appointment of Village Accountants having been given by Rule 4 of the 1970 Rules to all persons belonging to the category and class of the appellants who had served as Village Officers, the appellants who did not apply for appointment as Village Accountants in response to the aforesaid notification issued by the Recruitment Committee and did not possess the prescribed qualification, could not complain of the unconstitutionality of the 1970 Rules or of the Infringement of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution which merely forbid improper or invidious distinctions by conferring rights or privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from out of a larger group who are similarly circumstanced but do not exclude the laying down of selective tests nor prevent the Government from laying down general educational qualifications for the post in question. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the appellants have no right to maintain the aforesaid writ petitions. The appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed but without any order as to costs."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Pramod Kumar Singh @ Ganga vs State Of Bihar on 21 November, 2013

He has further referred to and relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of People‟s Union for Democratic rights & ors. v. Union of India & ors., reported in (1982)3 SCC 235, in the case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India & ors., reported in (1981)1 SCC 568, in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya & ors., reported in (2006)9 SCC1, in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapuprkar & ors., reported in (2008)9 SCC 54 and in the case of Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2011(2) PLJR 1051.
Patna High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - R K Mishra - Full Document
1