Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.32 seconds)
Ashok Parmar vs State And Ors on 14 May, 2018 cites

Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji vs State Of Gujarat & 6 on 13 April, 2016

8. On the other hand, Mr. Pranav Kohli, learned counsel for the Commission while placing reliance on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sh. JogendraSingh VijaySinghji v. State of Gujarat and ors, 2015 (7) SCALE 494 has submitted that a quasi judicial authority can defend its order. It is further submitted that the Commission while passing the impugned order has recorded the finding that there are allegations against the delinquent officials and has properly appreciated the material available on record while recording the findings, which do not call for any interference. It is also submitted that the writ petitions are premature as the same have been filed only against the recommendations made by the Commission. It is further submitted that the action on the report is yet to be taken by the State Government in view of Section 21(3) of the Act and only thereafter, the cause of action would have accrued to the petitioners to approach this Court. Therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are OWP No.726/2008, MP No.1073/2008 c/w OWP No.502/2008, MP Nos.01/2017 & 777/2008 OWP No.539/2008, MP No.820/2008 OWP No.552/2008, MP No.840/2008 Page 6 of 14 liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Mr. K S Johal, learned Senior Counsel for the complainant submitted that the document in question is a lease deed and the acts of omission and commission fall within the definition under Section 2 of the Act. It is further submitted that the lease was not covered under Section 28-A of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act and the Commission while recording the findings has taken the legal possible view.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 102 - A S Dave - Full Document
1   2 Next