Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
In support of the same learned counsel
relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The International Airport
Authority of India and others: AIR 1979 1628, in the
relevant part of para 35 of which it has been held as
follows:-
Jagdish Mandal vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 11 December, 2006
23. It is also contended by learned counsel that
under the guidelines the authorities of the Oil Company are
required to act on the basis of residence certificate issued by
the concerned officers of the State Government and once it
is held by the State Officers that the residence certificate is
not proper and the same is cancelled then it is not required
or expected by the authorities of the respondent-Oil
Company to make an independent enquiry with respect to
the validity or genuineness of the residence certificate rather
22
they must act upon it. In support of the same he relies upon
a decision of the Apex Court in the case Jagdish Mandal
Vs. State of Orissa and others: (2007) 14 SCC 517 in para-
26 of which it has been held as follows:
Moumita Podder vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.& Anr on 30 July, 2010
47. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued
that the order of the Chairman, DSB is a dependent order
and if the first order, namely, the order of the SDO, Benipatti
goes then the subsequent order, i.e., the order of DSB would
also become invalid, as held by the Supreme Court in the
case of M/s Tomus Stephen & Co. Ltd. Quilon (supra). That
being the position, since this Court is of the view that the
order of the Sub-Divisional Officer is unsustainable hence
the order of the SDO is fit to be quashed as unsustainable
and thus the subsequent order dated 20.6.2001 passed by the
Chairman, DSB would also be equally fit to be quashed.
V. Purushotham Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 October, 2001
The above observations make it
abundantly clear that this Court was
dealing with a situation where the
concerned Minister had bestowed undue
favour on the appellants in that case.
Shikharchand Jain vs Digamber Jain Praband Karini Sabha And ... on 11 January, 1974
40. As per the decision of the Apex Court in
Bhagwan Das‟s case (supra) it is evident that the crucial
issue was as to whether the petitioner was staying at village
Arer with the intention at the relevant time as can be judged
from his action to continue to stay there and make it his
residence or not, in view of the facts reported by the Block
Statistical Supervisor and the Panchayat Sewak on the
direction of the BDO, Benipatti pursuant to the direction by
the SDO, Benipatti. Reports show that the contention of the
petitioner that he was staying at Arer along with his family
members with his father-in-law from January, 1996 has, as a
matter of fact, been found to be correct by local enquiry
made by the Block and Panchayat officials. Thus, his
intention to shift his residence to Arer and remain there is
clearly established by the said reports. The advertisement for
42
LPG Distributorship was published in September, 2000 by
the time the petitioner had already been a resident of Arer for
approximately four years and eight months. This clearly
shows that the petitioner had become a de facto resident of
village Arer in terms of what has been laid down by the
Apex Court in Bhagwan Das‟s case (supra). Once it is held
that although the ancestral home of the petitioner falls in
Darbhanga district but he had shifted his residence to village
Arer in the district of Madhubani for a substantial period of
time to show that he intended to continue in the said
residence then it must be held that he was eligible under the
advertisement for the Distributorship in Madhubani District
on the basis of the said facts as per the law laid down in
Bhagwan Das‟s case (supra).
Ramchandra Murarilal Bhattad & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 5 December, 2006
14. Learned counsel also refers to various
decisions of the Supreme Court on the question of
interpretation of the word „Residence‟. However, he
strongly relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Bhagwan Das & anr. Vs Kamal Abrol and others: (2005)
11 SCC 66 in which most of the other cited decisions have
been considered and the principles laid down particularly in
relation to criterion of residence for allotment of LPG
Distributership. Paras 11, 12 and 13 of the said decision are
quoted below.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1