Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Karnataka Minerals And Manufacturing ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 21 January, 1991
4.6 Learned Senior Advocate would also rely upon the decision of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh in case of Maharishi Markandeshwar
Page 8 of 26
Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 00:48:11 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13177/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2023
undefined
University and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, reported
in 2020 SCC Online HP 2495, whereby the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh had inter alia laid down that principles as laid down in case of
Consortium of Deemed Universities in Karnataka (supra), could not be
stated to be applicable to the deemed universities only.
4.7 Learned Senior Advocate would thus submit that since the term
'ward' has not been defined or explained in the Gujarat Medical Admission
Act, 2007, and whereas in reply to the representation preferred by the
petitioner, it has been informed that the State interprets the term 'ward' as
per the definition appearing in the Guardians and Wards Act. That on the
other hand, there are two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which have
been followed by the Central Government and whereas in view of Entry
No. 25 in List III read with Entry No. 66 in List I of the 7 th Schedule, since
the primacy is of the Central Government, therefore any provision to the
contrary by the State would be of no consequence.
State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr. Etc. Etc vs Adhiyaman Educational & Research ... on 24 March, 1995
Insofar as the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of T.N. and Another Vs.
Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and Others (supra), it does
not appear that there is any Central legislation to which the present State
legislation is in conflict with, therefore the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the said decision would not advance the cause of the
Page 24 of 26
Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 00:48:11 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13177/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2023
undefined
petitioner.
Article 162 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Consortium Of Deemed Universities In ... vs Union Of India on 22 August, 2017
3. It is the case of the petitioner that after completing his MBBS Course
including one year compulsory internship, the petitioner had appeared in the
NEET-PG-2023 Examination and cleared the same with All India Rank
77,569. It is the case of the petitioner that while the admission process to
medical colleges for MBBS and PG Courses are regulated by the Gujarat
Professional Medical Educational Colleges or Institutions (Regulation of
Admission and Fixation of Fees) Act, 2007 (hereinafter to be referred to as
"the Gujarat Medical Admission Act, 2007"), and whereas while the said Act
contemplates reservation of 15% seats for NRIs, and whereas the definition
of NRI seats as per the Act includes the term 'ward', yet, there is no
definition prescribed in the Act as to who would constitute a ward of an
NRI. The petitioner had preferred representation inter alia requesting that
the meaning of the term 'ward' should be as per the broader meaning as
observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in an order dated 13.11.2006 rendered
in case of Ruchin Bharat Patel Vs. Parents' Association for the MD Students
and Others, reported in 2006 SCC Online SC 1437 as well as in an order of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Consortium of Deemed Universities in
Karnataka (CODEUNIK) and Another Vs. Union of India and Others,
reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 2110 and whereas the said representation
Page 3 of 26
Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 00:48:11 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13177/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2023
undefined
begin rejected by the State inter alia observing that the meaning of the word
'ward' would be as per the definition under the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890. Being aggrieved by the said rejection of the representation and seeking
for the prayers as reproduced hereinabove, the petitioner has preferred the
present petition.
Maharishi Markandeshwar University & ... vs State Of H.P And Others on 20 May, 2020
4.6 Learned Senior Advocate would also rely upon the decision of the
High Court of Himachal Pradesh in case of Maharishi Markandeshwar
Page 8 of 26
Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 00:48:11 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13177/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2023
undefined
University and Another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, reported
in 2020 SCC Online HP 2495, whereby the High Court of Himachal
Pradesh had inter alia laid down that principles as laid down in case of
Consortium of Deemed Universities in Karnataka (supra), could not be
stated to be applicable to the deemed universities only.
4.7 Learned Senior Advocate would thus submit that since the term
'ward' has not been defined or explained in the Gujarat Medical Admission
Act, 2007, and whereas in reply to the representation preferred by the
petitioner, it has been informed that the State interprets the term 'ward' as
per the definition appearing in the Guardians and Wards Act. That on the
other hand, there are two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, which have
been followed by the Central Government and whereas in view of Entry
No. 25 in List III read with Entry No. 66 in List I of the 7 th Schedule, since
the primacy is of the Central Government, therefore any provision to the
contrary by the State would be of no consequence.
Dr.C.S.Shri Lakshmi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 12 March, 2020
Learned Government Pleader has
referred to decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in case of Asmita Kaur Vs. State of Punjab and Others,
reported in 2019 SCC Online P & H 937 and decision of the High Court of
Madras in case of C.S. Shri Lakshmi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in
2020 SCC Online Mad 11797.
The State Of Gujarat And Another vs Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad, Etc on 26 March, 1974
In case of State of Gujarat
versus Shri Ambika Mills Ltd. reported in 1974 (4) SCC, page 656, the
Hon'ble Apex Court had inter-alia observed that a reasonable classification
is one which includes all who are similarly situated and none who are not.
The Hon'ble Apex Court had further observed that for understanding the
true purport of the term 'similarly situated' one should look beyond the
classification to the actual purpose of the law, concerned, that the purpose
of a law could either be elimination of a public mischief or the achievement
of some positive public good.
Prati Shailesh Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 16 August, 2016
4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave on behalf of the
petitioner would submit that admission to medical colleges in the State of
Gujarat for under-graduate and post-graduate courses are regulated by the
Gujarat Medical Admission Act, 2007, and whereas originally the Act, inter
alia defines Non-resident Indian seats as - "means 15% seats reserved for
children or wards or the dependents for the education purpose of the Non-
resident Indian, to whom admission is to be given in the professional
educational colleges or institutions". It is submitted that while the said Act
had been promulgated in the year 2007 with the extended definition as
hereinabove, the State had issued an Ordinance on 10.06.2016 under the
nomenclature Gujarat Provisional Medical Educational Colleges or
Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) (Amendment)
Ordinance, 2016, whereby the 15% NRI quota had been deleted. Learned
Senior Advocate would submit that the said ordinance had been challenged
before this Court and whereas vide judgment in case of Prati Shailesh Patel
Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2016 SCC Online GUJ 1909, a Division
Page 4 of 26
Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 00:48:11 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13177/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/08/2023
undefined
Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon'ble the Chief Justice R. Subhash Reddy
and Hon'ble Justice Vipul M. Pancholi) had set aside the said ordinance,
more particularly having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of P.A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2005 (6)
SCC 537. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the State had
thereafter deleted the words "or the dependents for the education purpose",
thus restricting the admission to NRI seats specifically to children or wards
of Non-resident Indians. Learned Advocate would submit that the term
'ward' has not been defined or explained in the Act.
P.A. Inamdar & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 August, 2005
15.1 Furthermore, it would be relevant to observe that while the said
decision itself envisages legislation to be framed, more particularly 'to
prevent misutilization or malpractice referable to NRI Quota Seats' and
therefore in the considered opinion of this Court, the word 'ward' used in
the context of the legislation could also not extend beyond the plain
meaning ascribed to the term. Again, in context of legislation, more
particularly since the word 'ward' envisages a minor who is under the
protection of an adult, the law which regulates such guardianship in the
country being the Guardians and Wards Act, therefore the definition of the
term 'ward' has rightly been attributed the same definition as found in the
legislation governing such a relationship.