Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.85 seconds)Nagendra Nath Bora & Another vs The Commissioner Of Hills Divisionand ... on 7 February, 1958
In Nagendra Nath v. Commissioner of Hills Division, AIR 1958 SC 398 in para 27 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as follows:--
M/S. Raman & Raman Ltd vs The State Of Madras & Others on 18 February, 1959
In a later decision reported in AIR 1965 SC 1196 their Lordships of the Supreme Court, following Raman and Raman's case (supra), reiterated as follows:--
State Of Assam And Another vs Ajit Kumar Sharma And Others on 27 October, 1964
In State of Assam v. Ajit Kumar Sarma, AIR 1965 SC 1196, while dealing with certain rules which were merely executive instructions without any statutory force, their Lordships of the Supreme Court, relying on Raman and Raman's case, AIR 1959 SC 694 (supra), held in para 12 as follows:--
G.J. Fernandez vs State Of Mysore & Ors on 14 April, 1967
Later, in G. J. Fernandez v. State of Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 1753, dealing with the question of disobedience of certain rules, which were mere administrative instructions and not statutory rules, contained in the Mysore Public Works Department Code, their Lordships held that no writ lies for disobedience of the rules. In para 12 of that decision their Lordships held as follows:--
Ramchandra Vishnu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 19 December, 1960
18. Similar rules governing admission to Medical Colleges in this State were made the basis of claiming a right of admission in some" cases in the past. The decisions in those cases are Ramchandra v. State of M. P., 1961 MPLJ 430 = (AIR 1961 Madh Pra 247), Prakashchandra v. State, 1962 MPLJ (Notes) 327 and Vinod Sagar Sood v. State Of M. P., 1967 MPLJ 194 = (AIR 1967 Madh Pra 182).
Minor P. Rajendran vs State Of Madras & Ors on 17 January, 1968
21. A recent decision of the Supreme Court which throws light on the question is P. Rajendran v. State of Madras, AIR 1968 SC 1012. In that case similar rules framed for admission to medical colleges controlled by the Government were challenged in so far as they provided for reservation of seats for specified categories of candidates. The Supreme Court in that case struck down only the rule which permitted district wise allocation of seats, on the grounds that it being discriminatory Was violative of the Constitution, as it was not a permissible classification. The other grounds of challenge were negatived. However, in dealing with that question their Lordships observed in para 17 of the judgment as follows:--
Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969
In Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 35 a challenge was made to certain nominations made by the Central Government and it was contended that the nominations being invalid, these seats were also available to the candidates in the general pool. Repelling such an argument, their Lordships held in para 12 as follows:--
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd on 22 November, 1967
28. The decision in Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies, AIR 1968 SC 718 is strongly relied on by Shri Dabir in support of his contention that the rule of equitable estoppel applies. That was a case in which a merchant acting on a representation made by the Government in an Export Promotion Scheme had made certain exports. That scheme promised certain benefits to such exporters and the question Was whether a merchant, who, acting on those promises had made certain exports, could be denied the benefits promised under that scheme. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held in that case that so long as the scheme was in force, the Government was estopped from going back on the representation made by it. We have already indicated that the present is not a case of that type and we are unable to appreciate that any detriment has been suffered by the petitioner No. 2 here. So long as she wanted admission to one of the seats in a medical college, she would have appeared in the Pre-Medical Examination and this action of hers did not depend on the contents of the Rules which provided for allocation of seats to different categories of candidates. We have already stated that it was not even necessary to publish the pro-Vision in these rules with regard to the manner in which the availability of the seats for the various categories was to be determined. That was only intended for guidance of the officers who had to admit the candidates. The position is not altered simply because they were in fact published and made known even to the candidates by way of general information. In fact, there Was no representation made at all by these provisions to the intending candidates. Therefore, the very basis for invoking the rules of equitable estoppel is non-existent in this case.