Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.39 seconds)
Vijay Namdev Kusekar And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 30 August, 2024 cites

Ashwin Prafulla Pimpalwar And Etc. vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 16 September, 1991

5. Petitioner represented by Shri. S. Rane, learned counsel submits that the impugned corrigendum dated 14th February 2017 is patently arbitrary and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, since there is abrupt change in policy without any rational. Petitioner further submitted that the impugned corrigendum is issued merely on the basis of a letter addressed by the Commissioner of Cooperation and same is not based on recommendation of any expert committee and, therefore, it suffers from non-application of mind. Petitioner further submitted that the impugned corrigendum has amended only clause (1) without amending other clauses of Government Resolution dated 23 rd September 2013, which would lead to patent absurdity. It is further submitted that under the garb of "Corrigendum" substantive change has been made in the existing policy which permitted registration of only one PACCS in one revenue village. It is further submitted that the impugned corrigendum has been issued to regularise 47 PACCS in different villages in Shirur by giving retrospective effect and the impugned corrigendum is issued for political reason and in violation of model code of conduct which was in force in view of the ensuing elections to zilla parishad and panchayat samiti. Petitioner further submitted that the changes sought to be made by way of impugned 10 of 41 ::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 22:10:51 ::: Tauseef 04-WP.3712.2017-J.doc corrigendum does not fall within the meaning of the term "Corrigendum". Petitioner further submitted that the decision of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.1747 of 2013 and 1164 of 2017 interpreting clause (1) of Government Resolution dated 23 rd September 2013 having attained finality, the impugned corrigendum runs foul of the law laid down therein. Petitioner further relied upon the decision in the case of Shikshak Bharti Vs. State of Maharashtra 1 and Ashwin Prafulla Pimpalwar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2, in support of its submissions and prayed for setting aside of the impugned corrigendum dated 14th February 2017.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 31 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr vs P. Krishnamurthy & Ors on 24 March, 2006

8. Respondent No.5 represented by Mr. S. Patil learned counsel in Writ Petition No.13990 of 2023 submits that the proposed society, is affected by the challenge made to the impugned corrigendum since they have been granted registration on 7th July 2023 and, therefore are opposing the petition on various grounds. Respondent No.5 submits that putting a blanket bar on the registration of new societies in a particular village would be in violation of Article 19(1)(c) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No.5 further submitted that it is nobody's case that the authority issuing the corrigendum had no power to issue the same and once it is admitted that the State has power to issue such a corrigendum, it cannot be said that the impugned corrigendum was a colourable exercise of power. Respondent No.5 further submitted that the impugned corrigendum was issued after following due process of law and after obtaining the approval of the 3 2010 (11) SCC 374 12 of 41 ::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 22:10:51 ::: Tauseef 04-WP.3712.2017-J.doc Governor under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Respondent No.5 further submitted that there is no malice in law as proposed to be canvassed by Petitioners, since in none of the petitions, it is contended as to or for whose benefit, the corrigendum was issued. Respondent No.5 submitted that there is no case made out for challenge to the impugned corrigendum since none of the grounds laid down by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P. Krishnamurthy4 is satisfied in the present case. Respondent No.5 further submitted that this Court should not entertain the present petition, since it would amount to entering the arena of policy decision taken by the State and same is not permissible. Respondent No.5 further submitted that there is no rectification in the Government Resolution dated 23rd September 2013 by the impugned corrigendum, but only replacement of the phrase "only one". Respondent No.5 further submits that allowing the petition would amount to surfacing new illegal order because by setting aside illegal order another illegality would come into existence. Respondent No.5 further submitted that consequences of striking down the corrigendum would be severe since during the interregnum period, many societies have been formed and transactions of loans and deposits have taken place, which would now be irreversible if the impugned corrigendum is quashed as prayed for by the Petitioner. Respondent No.5, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the 4 2006 (4) SCC 517 13 of 41 ::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2024 22:10:51 ::: Tauseef 04-WP.3712.2017-J.doc petition. Respondent No.5 has relied upon the following decisions in support of its submissions :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 226 - Full Document
1   2 Next