Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.29 seconds)

Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (Dmk) vs Secretary Governors Secretariat And ... on 6 December, 2019

13] Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.A.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the opposite parties/petitioners in WP(C) No.5771/2024 and WP(C) no.48/2025 submits that there is no dispute on the powers of the State for delimitation of Panchayat Constituencies. The question is how the decision has been arrived at. As has been held by the Apex Court in Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) (supra), it is open to a writ Court to scrutiny the decision making process and therefore, in a given matter the Court can always scrutinize the decision making process and pass appropriate orders in order to uphold the constitution mandate. Referring to the SOP dated 19.07.2024 he submits that there is no bifurcation contemplated of any census or revenue village under Clause 4
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 37 - S A Bobde - Full Document

B.K. Srinivasan & Another Etc. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 January, 1987

Consequently, the people concerned who are affected could not represent or ventilate their grievances before the competent Authority. Referring to a map enclosed to the writ petition, learned Senior Counsel attempted to demonstrate as Page No.# 48/58 to how the villages were segregated from the Gaon Panchayat Office requiring the people of the Gaon Panchayat to undertake arduous journey to the Gaon Panchayat Offices for any work relating to Panchayats. He has pressed into service the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in B.K. Srinivasan & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others reported in (1987) 1 SCC 658 to submit that Sub-ordinate Legislation in order to take effect must be published and promulgated in some suitable manner whether such publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 169 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978

Referring to Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India & Another reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248, he submits that merely because a statutory provision empowering an authority to take action in specified circumstances is constitutionally valid as not being in conflict with any fundamental rights, it does not give a carte blanche to the authority to make any such order it likes so long as it is within the parameters laid down by the statutory provisions. He therefore submits that while there is no dispute that the Government has the power to proceed for delimitation of Panchayat villages, the same will have to be tested on the touchstone of the procedure prescribed and mandated by law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 126 - Cited by 1969 - M H Beg - Full Document

Kishan Singh Tomar vs Municipal Corporation Of The City Of ... on 19 October, 2006

He refers to another judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court rendered in Kishan Singh Tomar vs. Municipal Corporation of the City Ahmedabad reported in (2006) 8 SCC 352, where the Apex Court held that the State Election Commission must take all steps to ensure the election is completed within the time limit prescribed under the Constitution. State Election Commission is to function independently of the State Government. The fact that certain claims or objections are pending and are not finally disposed of while preparing the electoral rolls or even assuming that they are not filed in accordance with the law, as such, cannot arrest the process of election. He also refers to an order passed by the Apex Court in WP(C) No. 51 of 2023 where the delimitation process of the Parliamentary and Assembly Election in the State of Assam was put to challenge and the Apex Court by order dated 24.07.2023 although admitted the matter for further scrutiny, declined to pass any interim orders interdicting the Election Commission from taking further steps towards holding of the Page No.# 51/58 election. He therefore submits that in all matters where counter affidavit by the State has not been filed, the State should be permitted to do so and the leave prayed for in the Interlocutory Application's filed by the State and State Election Commission should granted. No further interim order is respect of the other writ petitions are called for as it will frustrate the steps undertaken to hold the Panchayat election in terms of the Constitutional mandate.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 17 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 Next