Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.30 seconds)M/S Sethi Auto Service Station & Anr vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 17 October, 2008
51. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard in the
decision of Sethi Auto Service Station and Another vs. Delhi
Development Authority and Ors., reported in (2009) 1 SCC 180 and
the relevant portions of the above decision is quoted below:-
Modern India Concast Limited & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 5 September, 2019
44. With regard to the decision cited by the respondents in the
matter of Modern India Concast Limited & Ors. (supra) Mr. Kar
submitted that the decision was distinguishable, inasmuch as, the
23
petitioner claiming incentive therein had applied for registration after
the expiry of the scheme. The submission of Mr. Kar is not accepted.
The petitioner in the instant case did not apply in the prescribed
format that is, Form-I as contemplated under the scheme within the
validity period that is, March 31, 2008. The WBSSIS 2008 came into
effect from April 1, 2008. The petitioner wrote a letter to the Principal
Secretary and not to the appropriate authority which was sent under
certificate of posting, dated January 25, 2008 praying for provisional
registration under WBIS 2004 on the allegation that their incomplete
application in Form-I was not being accepted by the concerned
Directorate. Whereas, records reveal that an application in Form-1
without all documents was accepted by the department in June 2008
for Phase 1.
T.Lakshmipathi & Ors vs P.Nithyananda Reddy & Ors on 31 March, 2003
In the decision of
International Trading Co. & Anr. (supra) a similar view was
expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus the cases of the 54
industrial units were different. Those units had applied in the
26
prescribed form within March 31, 2008, but had submitted the
complete document within March 31, 2009 and the Government had
adopted a policy to grant them the subsidy under WBIS 2004 . The
petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that these 54 persons had
not applied in the prescribed form but had only submitted letters like
the petitioner. Moreover, even assuming that such special treatment
could not have been granted to these units, the law is clear, that there
could not be any negative equality and similar relief could not be
permitted under the scheme to the petitioner. The concept of equal
treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot
be pressed into service in such cases. As the petitioner had not
applied in the prescribed form within March 31, 2008, the petitioner
was not treated to be eligible for the benefits under the WBIS 2004 as
per the policy of the government.
M/S Anand Buttons Ltd vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 10 December, 2004
47. The decision of Anand Buttons Ltd. (supra) reiterated the
principle of law that Article 14 does not mandate that similarly
situated persons should be granted similar relief, if it is found that
those persons were granted an unjustified relief. Exemptions given to
persons who did not qualify under the Government scheme for
subsidy at the highest would make the subsidy granted to them
vulnerable. But, this would not justify granting such relief to the
petitioner, which would mean perpetuating a wrong. The concept of
equal treatment presupposes the existence of similar legal foothold.
Commnr. Of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs M/S. Dilip Kumar And Company on 30 July, 2018
33. Mr. Mazumder relied on the decisions of Union of India &
Anr. vs. International Trading Co. & Anr., reported in (2003) 5 SCC
437, Anand Buttons Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in
(2005) 9 SCC 164, Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs.
Dilip Kumar & Company & Ors., reported in (2018) 9 SCC 1 and one
unreported judgment of this High Court in Modern India Concast
Limited & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (In re: W.P.
No.75 of 2019) in support of his above submissions.
Union Of India & Ors vs Vartak Labour Union on 4 March, 2011
50. The petitioner also placed reliance on the notes of the
different departments where proposals for approving the case of the
petitioner as a pipeline case was approved by the Directorate as also
Finance Department and the matter was placed before the Standing
Committee of the Cabinet for a decision. However, the petitioner was
never sent any communication with regard to such approval nor did
the authorities write to the petitioner at any point of time that the case
was approved by the departments and was awaiting the decision of
the Cabinet. Reference is made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in this regard in Union of India and Others vs. Vartak Labour
Union(2) reported in (2011) 4 SCC 200 and the relevant portions of
the above decision is quoted below:-
Jasbir Singh Chhabra & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 9 March, 2010
16. Similar views are echoed in Jasbir Singh Chhabra v. State
of Punjab [(2010) 4 SCC 192]. This Court has observed that: (SCC p.
209, para 35)
"35. It must always be remembered that in a democratic polity
like ours, the functions of the Government are carried out by
different individuals at different levels. The issues and policy
matters which are required to be decided by the Government are
dealt with by several functionaries some of whom may record
notings on the files favouring a particular person or group of
persons. Someone may suggest a particular line of action, which
may not be conducive to public interest and others may suggest
adoption of a different mode in larger public interest. However, the
final decision is required to be taken by the designated authority
keeping in view the larger public interest."
Bachhittar Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 7 March, 1962
In Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 395 :
Laxminarayan R. Bhattad & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 4 April, 2003
16. To the like effect are the observations of this Court
in Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 5 SCC
413] , wherein it was said that a right created under an order of a
statutory authority must be communicated to the person concerned
so as to confer an enforceable right.