Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.32 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Companies Act, 2013
Devesh Sharma vs Union Of India on 11 August, 2023
8.3 The State Government's decision to permit
fishing rights by E-Tender for the Tanks with lift
irrigation facilities or tanks with the spread of certain
hectares or the Tanks filled by KC Valley, even if
considered as a policy decision, is arbitrary and without
application of mind, and when these are shown, the
Courts will have to intervene as observed by the Apex
30
Court in Devesh Sharma v. Union of India and
others3. The reliance is on the following paragraph:
Nuanai Primary Fishermen Co-Operative ... vs State Of Orissa And Ors. on 11 November, 1991
contrary to the law, or a decision which has been
taken without proper application of mind, or in
total disregard of relevant factors is liable is liable
to be interfered with, as that also is the mandate
in law and the Constitution. This aspect has been
reiterated by this Court time and again.
8.4 The State Government's reason to justify the
decision to deviate from the policy of inviting tenders
only when there is no application by a Fishermen's Co-
Operative Society is that it will have to recover the cost
of power utilised in operating the lift irrigation facilities,
but as emphasised by the High Court of Orissa in
Nuanai Primary Fishermen Co-operative Society v.
The State of Orissa4, the State cannot justify a
deviation from the policy, which is articulated in public
3 [2023] 18 Supreme Court Cases 339
4 1992 1 OLR 40
31
interest, for monetary reasons. The fact that the State
Government justifies its decision to deviate from the
policy articulated in the Fishing Policy-2014 based on
monetary considerations enables the petitioners to
discharge the preliminary burden of showing that the
deviation from the policy is arbitrary and unreasonable.
Food Corporation Of India vs Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries on 11 November, 1992
8.8 It is settled law that the Court will interfere
on the ground of breach of legitimate expectation when
it is shown that the deviation is not based on any larger
34
public interest. The deviation from the Fishing Policy-
2014 in the impugned Government Order dated 02.06.
2025, and the impugned tender notifications, do not
sub-serve any larger public interest, and in fact, they
undermine such interest in denying fishing rights to the
fishermen/their Co-operative Societies in permitting
commercialisation with stipulations such as that
tenders must be invited for all tanks which have a
spread of over 40/ 100 hectares. The reliance is upon
the decision of the Apex Court in Food Corporation of
India v. Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries5.
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors on 24 October, 1986
• The Dhampur [Kashipur] Limited v. State of
Uttaranchal and others6
• State of Madhya Pradesh and others v
Nandanlal Jaiswal and others7
• Balco Employees Union[registered] v Union of
India and others8
• Union of India and others v. Dinesh
Engineering Corporation and another9
9.3 Mr. C S Pradeep also rebuts the argument
that the impugned Government Order dated 02.06.2025
is contrary to the resolution in the 12th Meeting of the
Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development
authority, a meeting chaired by the Honourable Chief
Minister, because the decision is to grant fishing rights
6 [2007] 8 Supreme Court Cases 418.
Union Of India & Ors vs Dinesh Engineering Corpn. & Anr on 18 September, 2001
• The Dhampur [Kashipur] Limited v. State of
Uttaranchal and others6
• State of Madhya Pradesh and others v
Nandanlal Jaiswal and others7
• Balco Employees Union[registered] v Union of
India and others8
• Union of India and others v. Dinesh
Engineering Corporation and another9
9.3 Mr. C S Pradeep also rebuts the argument
that the impugned Government Order dated 02.06.2025
is contrary to the resolution in the 12th Meeting of the
Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development
authority, a meeting chaired by the Honourable Chief
Minister, because the decision is to grant fishing rights
6 [2007] 8 Supreme Court Cases 418.
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Cipla Ltd. & Anr on 21 October, 2016
"25. There can be no exception to the proposition
that water bodies have to be conserved,
maintained and developed. In respect of 362 tanks,
State have taken action to fill water through lift
irrigation. This obviously consumes power. As held
43
in Ministry of chemicals and fertilisers
government of India Vs. Cipla Ltd10 quoted with
approval in Hindustan zinc Ltd., a policy document
cannot be read and interpreted as statutory
provision. Further, government is the best judge to
decide the policy matters. The administrative
authority is well necessary experience and court
cannot substitute its opinion in policy matters".