Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)Section 34A in Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
V.S. Mukthar And Anr. vs Principal Secretary To Govt., ... on 18 September, 1997
When this Court pointed out to the learned Counsel for
the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of the first
respondent to entertain the so-called representation submitted
by the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner is
unable to point out the jurisdiction of the first respondent. On
the other hand, learned Government Pleader produced before
me a copy of the order of this Court in V.S.Mukthar v.
Principal Secretary to Government , wherein it was clearly
held that the Government has no power to interfere in the
process of no confidence motion.
Pratap Chandra Mehta vs State Bar Council Of M.P.& Ors on 9 August, 2011
Though the learned Government Pleader relied on Pratap
Chandra Mehta v. State Bar Council of India , it is a case
dealing with the existence of the power to move the no
confidence motion and it is not applicable to the present facts of
the case, where the revisional power of the Government is under
challenge.
Section 76 in Andhra Pradesh Co-Operative Societies Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
Toddy Tappers Co-Operative Society, ... vs Government Of A.P. Revenue Department, ... on 22 January, 1999
Applying the principle laid down in the two
judgments quoted above, it becomes abundantly clear
that the writ petitioners were given an opportunity of
making a representation. In fact, they had moved the
Government and they had filed a petition. After they
filed a petition in writing the requirement of Section
77(2) got complied with. It was only the respondents
who had to be notified and who had to be given a right to
represent but not the petitioners who had been given a
chance to represent. The learned Counsel for the
petitioners has not been able to show a single authority
which would suggest that a personal hearing of the
petitioners was needed when the case finally decided by
the Minister. The Minister while deciding the revision
had before him the revision which was made by way of
revision by the petitioners and on the basis of which he
had exercised his jurisdiction. Section 77 makes it clear
that the Minister or the Registrar, as the case may be,
can exercise his powers of revision either suo-motu or on
motion by anybody. Since in this case the revisional
powers were exercised on the basis of application moved
by the writ petitioners, therefore, sufficient opportunity
had been given to the petitioners to make a
representation against the order which was impugned.
1