Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.35 seconds)Babu Ram Sagar vs The Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. ... on 3 February, 2009
This
Court has echoed the same views in Filmistan
Exhibitors Ltd. v. NCT of Delhi [Filmistan
Exhibitors Ltd. v. NCT of Delhi, 2006 SCC
OnLine Del 471 : (2006) 131 DLT 648] by
holding that even if there is a violation of law, this
Court is not bound to exercise discretionary
jurisdiction and in Babu Ram Sagar v. Labour
Court [Babu Ram Sagar v. Labour Court, 2006
SCC OnLine Del 1648] by refusing to interfere in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.09.2023 W.P.(C) 10451/2023 Page 17 of 27
21:04:48
exercise of discretionary powers in spite of
holding the reasons given by the Labour Court to
be not convincing.
Sushil Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 July, 2005
The
judgment in Sushil Kumar case [Sushil Kumar v.
Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3660] was also
followed by this Court in Karamjyoti v. Union of India
[Karamjyoti v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del
6766] whereby it was inter alia held as under :
Ms Manika Batra vs Table Tennis Federation Of India ... on 17 October, 2022
16. Though the jurisdiction of the court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is very wide but it has
to be used with circumspection. The names in the
present case have been finalised by the Committee of
Administrators appointed by this Court in Manika
Batra v. Table Tennis Federation of India [Manika
Batra v. Table Tennis Federation of India, 2021 SCC
OnLine Del 4479] vide judgment dated 11-2-2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have taken this
Court through the findings of the Committee of
Administrators. A bare perusal of the findings of the
Committee of Administrators makes it clear that the
Committee has threadbare examined the entire issue
and then after taking into account all aspects finalised
the names to be sent for participating in the
Commonwealth Games. The court in the present
jurisdiction cannot substitute its own view with the
view arrived into by the Committee of Administrators
and the Selection Committee. The courts do not have
any expertise to get into the selection and finalisation
of players for participation at the international level.
This Court is conscious of the fact that any such
findings can be interfered with only if there is any
perversity or arbitrariness in the findings arrived into
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.09.2023 W.P.(C) 10451/2023 Page 25 of 27
21:04:48
by the Federation concerned. However, I do not find
any such arbitrariness or perversity in the such order
and furthermore, Mr Moazzam Khan, learned counsel
for Respondent 1 has stated at bar that the names have
already been finalised and sent to the Indian Olympic
Association.
Karamjyoti vs Union Of India And Ors. on 11 August, 2016
Beyond this narrow scope of enquiry, courts do
not possess the ability or the wherewithal to
"second-guess" policy decisions made by
specialised bodies tasked with that purpose.
Specifically, in the context of selection of athletes
for sporting events, this Court in previous
decisions such as Karamjyoti v. Union of India
[Karamjyoti v. Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine
Del 6766] and Shumel v. Union of India [Shumel
v. Union of India, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4706] ,
has held that a writ court will not interfere in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL SINGH
Signing Date:21.09.2023 W.P.(C) 10451/2023 Page 23 of 27
21:04:48
exercise of discretion of the National Sports
Federation except where the discretion is shown
to have been exercised in an arbitrary or
capricious or perverse manner or contrary to the
settled principles or practices. What then is the
task before this Court, is to ascertain whether on
a broad, prima facie view, without getting into the
intricacies of the policy decision, there is manifest
arbitrariness or mala fides in the decision-making
of the Committee.
State Of U.P. And Anr vs Johri Mal on 21 April, 2004
12. A perusal of the above order makes it clear that the
Committee of Administrators was entrusted with all the
powers and duties of functioning of the Federation.
The Committee of Administrators has minutely
examined the claim of each of the sportsperson and
passed a detailed order while finalising the list, which
is under challenge. The power of judicial review in the
matters relating to sports can be exercised only if there
is an allegation of bad faith. In such matters, the courts
should give great credence to the decision of the
Expert Committee and the coaches. If the courts starts
interfering in the decision of such Committees it would
have a drastic inhibiting effect on its functioning. The
scope of power of judicial review was also laid down
by the Supreme court in State of U.P. v. Johri Mal
[State of U.P. v. Johri Mal, (2004) 4 SCC 714]
wherein it was held that the scope and extent of power
of the judicial review of the High Court contained in
Article 226 of the Constitution of India would vary
from case to case, the nature of the order, the relevant
statute as also the other relevant factors including the
nature of power exercised by the public authorities,
namely, whether the power is statutory, quasi-judicial
or administrative. It was held that the power of judicial
review is not intended to assume a supervisory role or
don the robes of omnipresent or to review governance
under the rule of law or to enable the courts to step
into the areas exclusively reserved by the suprema lex
to the other organs of the State. It was expressly
observed that an order passed by an administrative
authority exercising discretion vested in it, cannot be
interfered in judicial review unless it is shown that
exercise of discretion itself is perverse or illegal.
Sushil Kumar Agrawal vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. 12 ... on 4 April, 2018
In Sushil Kumar v. Union of India [Sushil Kumar v.
Union of India, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3660] , this
Court inter alia held that a writ court will not interfere
in exercise of discretion of the National Sports
Federation and substitute its own judgment except
where discretion is shown to have been exercised in an
arbitrary or capricious or perverse manner or is
contrary to settled principles of practices. The court
inter alia held that the decision, who should represent
India in a sporting event is best left to the experts i.e.
the National Sports Federation concerned.
Paralympic Committee Of India vs Naresh Kumar Sharma And Anr. on 18 April, 2018
In Paralympic Committee of India v. Naresh
Kumar Sharma [Paralympic Committee of India v.
Naresh Kumar Sharma, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8443]
this Court has inter alia held as under :
Taherakhatoon (D) By Lrs vs Salambin Mohammad on 26 February, 1999
Sendhabhai Vastram Patel, (2005) 6 SCC 454] .
Similarly, in Taherakhatoon v. Salambin
Mohammad [Taherakhatoon v. Salambin
Mohammad, (1999) 2 SCC 635] even at the time
of the dealing with the appeal after grant of
special leave, it was held that the court was not
bound to go into the merits and even if entering
into the merits and finding an error, was not
bound to interfere if the justice of the case on
facts does not require interference or if the relief
could be moulded in a different fashion.