Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.47 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Section 35 in The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Avjinder Singh Sibia vs S. Prakash Singh Badal And Ors. on 29 October, 2007
Learned Advocate General supported the G.Os issued by the
State while contending that appointment as a member of the trust
board is not a vested right on anyone and trust boards are being
changed from time to time based on situation prevailing in the
State. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any vested right and
when the petitioners have no vested right, the question of issue of
notice does not arise and placed reliance on "Avjinder Singh
Sibia v. S. Prakash Singh Badal3", in the said judgment, the
Court held as follows:
Ishwar Nagar Coop House Building ... vs Parma Nand Sharma & Ors on 15 November, 2010
An identical question came up before the Apex Court in
"Ishwar Nagar Co-op. Housing Building Society v. Parma Nand
Sharma" (referred supra), wherein Rule 25 (1) (c) of Delhi
Cooperative Societies Rules, 1973 came up for consideration,
which authorizes the competent authority to expel a member from
the society and the main challenge was that such provision cannot
be given retrospective effect and contrary to the bye-laws. In the
said Judgment, the Apex Court framed four (4) points for
consideration. Question No.2 is as follows:
The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987
Section 5 in The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Om Narain Agarwal And Ors. Etc vs Nagar Palika Shahjahanpur And Ors. Etc on 19 February, 1993
The other contention before the Division Bench was that on
the basis of motives or discrimination in the term of office held by
committees and special committees is merely referred to and
rejected in limini. The legislative action under our Constitution is
subject only to the limitations prescribed by the Constitution. The
enactment of competent legislature cannot be tested on the
grounds available against an executive order. The challenge on
the ground of motives or discrimination is factually and legally
untenable and is accordingly rejected. It is further observed that it
is an admitted fact that the petitioners were nominated to the
committee in accordance with unamended Section 5 of the Act.
The nomination to post or a committee as held by the A p e x
Court in "Om Narain Aggarwal and Ors v. Nagar Palika,
Shahjahanpur" and "Avjinder Singh Sibia v. S. Prakash Singh
Badal" (referred supra) have a few trappings and
uncertainties. Merely because at the time of nomination a three
year tenure was provided in the Statute, the same cannot be
treated as a vested right under the Statute. The fact that before
nomination an effort of short listing or selecting eligible applicants
does not make any difference to the term of office of the
Committee. It is one thing to reduce the term of office of an
elected body and another to reduce the term of office of a
nominated body. The State Legislature, as already noted, made a
MSM,J
WPs_19007 and 19035_2019
19
further few changes to the principal Act to keep these sections in
line with Section 5 of the Act. The exigencies of administration and
vicissitudes with the change of political power are considered in
great detail in the decisions referred to above and in agreement
with the ratio/reasoning in the cases referred to above on the State
Legislature's power to determine the term of office to nominated
posts.