Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)Section 226 in Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
State Of U.P. & Ors.Etc vs Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti & Ors. Etc on 24 March, 1995
In Pradhan Sangh Kshetra Samiti's case (supra), the Apex Court at Para-51 observed as hereunder :
Visakhapatnam Municipality vs Kandregula Nukaraju & Ors on 29 August, 1975
We must also make it clear that we had passed the interim order, as stated earlier, pending the decision and without prejudice to the contentions of the State Government that the election process once started could not be set at naught by raising objections on the ground that the delimitation of the panchayat areas was defective. We have pointed out that the original delimitation of the panchayat areas having been made much prior to the election notification of 31-8-1994, the respondent-writ petitioners could not have challenged the same after the said notification and the Court could not have entertained the challenge. There was, therefore, no invalidity in the action taken by the State Government by its notification of 31-8-1994 to commence the election process. We are, in these proceedings, referring to the lacuna in the steps taken by the State Government to finalise the panchayat areas only with a view to point out that it was obligatory on the State Government to hear the objections before the panchayat areas were finalized. The ratio of the decisions of this Court in Visakhapatnam Municipality v, Kandregula Nukaraja ; S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmokm , Baldev Singh v. State of H.P. , Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector and Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana 1993 Supp (2) SCC 278, requires that a reasonable opportunity for raising the objections and hearing them ought to be given in such matters since the change in the areas of the local bodies results in civil consequences. It was not disputes before us that the action of bringing more villages than one under one Gram Panchayat when they were earlier under separate Gram Panchayats, does involve civil consequences. However, as held in Visakhapatnam Municipality, S.I. Kapoor, Baldev Singh, S.K. Bhatija and Atlas Cycles cases (supra), in matters which are urgent even a post-decisional hearing is a sufficient compliance of the principle of natural justice, viz., audi alterant partem.
Baldev Singh And Ors. vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors. on 10 April, 1987
We must also make it clear that we had passed the interim order, as stated earlier, pending the decision and without prejudice to the contentions of the State Government that the election process once started could not be set at naught by raising objections on the ground that the delimitation of the panchayat areas was defective. We have pointed out that the original delimitation of the panchayat areas having been made much prior to the election notification of 31-8-1994, the respondent-writ petitioners could not have challenged the same after the said notification and the Court could not have entertained the challenge. There was, therefore, no invalidity in the action taken by the State Government by its notification of 31-8-1994 to commence the election process. We are, in these proceedings, referring to the lacuna in the steps taken by the State Government to finalise the panchayat areas only with a view to point out that it was obligatory on the State Government to hear the objections before the panchayat areas were finalized. The ratio of the decisions of this Court in Visakhapatnam Municipality v, Kandregula Nukaraja ; S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmokm , Baldev Singh v. State of H.P. , Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector and Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana 1993 Supp (2) SCC 278, requires that a reasonable opportunity for raising the objections and hearing them ought to be given in such matters since the change in the areas of the local bodies results in civil consequences. It was not disputes before us that the action of bringing more villages than one under one Gram Panchayat when they were earlier under separate Gram Panchayats, does involve civil consequences. However, as held in Visakhapatnam Municipality, S.I. Kapoor, Baldev Singh, S.K. Bhatija and Atlas Cycles cases (supra), in matters which are urgent even a post-decisional hearing is a sufficient compliance of the principle of natural justice, viz., audi alterant partem.
Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija & Ors vs Collector, Thane, Maharashtra & Ors on 13 July, 1989
We must also make it clear that we had passed the interim order, as stated earlier, pending the decision and without prejudice to the contentions of the State Government that the election process once started could not be set at naught by raising objections on the ground that the delimitation of the panchayat areas was defective. We have pointed out that the original delimitation of the panchayat areas having been made much prior to the election notification of 31-8-1994, the respondent-writ petitioners could not have challenged the same after the said notification and the Court could not have entertained the challenge. There was, therefore, no invalidity in the action taken by the State Government by its notification of 31-8-1994 to commence the election process. We are, in these proceedings, referring to the lacuna in the steps taken by the State Government to finalise the panchayat areas only with a view to point out that it was obligatory on the State Government to hear the objections before the panchayat areas were finalized. The ratio of the decisions of this Court in Visakhapatnam Municipality v, Kandregula Nukaraja ; S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmokm , Baldev Singh v. State of H.P. , Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector and Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana 1993 Supp (2) SCC 278, requires that a reasonable opportunity for raising the objections and hearing them ought to be given in such matters since the change in the areas of the local bodies results in civil consequences. It was not disputes before us that the action of bringing more villages than one under one Gram Panchayat when they were earlier under separate Gram Panchayats, does involve civil consequences. However, as held in Visakhapatnam Municipality, S.I. Kapoor, Baldev Singh, S.K. Bhatija and Atlas Cycles cases (supra), in matters which are urgent even a post-decisional hearing is a sufficient compliance of the principle of natural justice, viz., audi alterant partem.
Atlas Cycle Indutries Ltd. & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 17 December, 1992
We must also make it clear that we had passed the interim order, as stated earlier, pending the decision and without prejudice to the contentions of the State Government that the election process once started could not be set at naught by raising objections on the ground that the delimitation of the panchayat areas was defective. We have pointed out that the original delimitation of the panchayat areas having been made much prior to the election notification of 31-8-1994, the respondent-writ petitioners could not have challenged the same after the said notification and the Court could not have entertained the challenge. There was, therefore, no invalidity in the action taken by the State Government by its notification of 31-8-1994 to commence the election process. We are, in these proceedings, referring to the lacuna in the steps taken by the State Government to finalise the panchayat areas only with a view to point out that it was obligatory on the State Government to hear the objections before the panchayat areas were finalized. The ratio of the decisions of this Court in Visakhapatnam Municipality v, Kandregula Nukaraja ; S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmokm , Baldev Singh v. State of H.P. , Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector and Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana 1993 Supp (2) SCC 278, requires that a reasonable opportunity for raising the objections and hearing them ought to be given in such matters since the change in the areas of the local bodies results in civil consequences. It was not disputes before us that the action of bringing more villages than one under one Gram Panchayat when they were earlier under separate Gram Panchayats, does involve civil consequences. However, as held in Visakhapatnam Municipality, S.I. Kapoor, Baldev Singh, S.K. Bhatija and Atlas Cycles cases (supra), in matters which are urgent even a post-decisional hearing is a sufficient compliance of the principle of natural justice, viz., audi alterant partem.