Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 2 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Balco Employees Union (Regd.) vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 December, 2001
If one or two of these central problems have been growing worse, especially if all three have, it would be strange to call the result development even if per capita income has soared. The policy has to bring about the greatest happiness of the greatest number. The greatness of the policy maker is in not falling, but in rising every time it falls. That is why in BALCO's case, the Apex Court has held that the Government has, while taking a policy decision relating to economic issues, right to 'trial and error'.
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors vs Nandlal Jaiswal & Ors on 24 October, 1986
34. But, while considering the applicability of Article 14 in such a case, we must bear in mind that, having regard to the nature of the trade or business, the Court would be slow to interfere with the policy laid down by the State Government for grant of licences for manufacture and sale of liquor. The Court would, in view of the inherently pernicious nature of the commodity allow large measure of latitude to the State Government in determining its policy of regulating, manufacture and trade in liquor. Moreover, the grant of licences for manufacture and sale of liquor would essentially be a matter of economic policy where the Court would hesitate to intervene and strike down what the State Government has done, unless it appears to be plainly arbitrary, irrational or mala fide.
R.K. Garg Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors. Etc on 20 October, 1981
We had occasion to consider the scope of interference by the Court under Article 14 while dealing with laws relating to economic activities in R.K. Garg v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 2138. We pointed out in that case that laws relating to economic activities should be viewed with greater latitude than laws touching civil rights such as freedom of speech, religion, etc. We observed that the Legislature should be allowed some play in the joints because it has to deal with complex problems which do not admit of solution through any doctrinaire or strait-jacket formula and this is particularly true in case of legislation dealing with economic matters, where, having regard to the nature of the problems required to be dealt with, greater play in the joints has to be allowed to the Legislature.
579Ajeet Singh Singhvi Etc vs State Of Rajasthan And Others Etc on 20 February, 1991
11. Nextly the Solicitor General submitted that the Government being the author of the policy, has every right to remove any ambiguity about the policy. He defended issuance of the clarificatory letter dated 5/10th December, 2002 by citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajeet Singh Singhvi v. State of Rajasthan 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 343 : 1991 SCC(L and S) 1026. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow:
Federation Of Associations Of ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 November, 2004
21. Sri Sorabjee also brought to my notice the order, dated 22nd November, 2004 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 9568 to 9570 of 2003 in the case of Federation of Associations of Maharashtra, and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., wherein it is held that it is for the Government and not for the Courts to interpret the term 'wholesale sale'. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow;
Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 October, 1985
24. The contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the expanded definition of the term 'wholesale trading' is not in consonance with the directive principles of the State Policy contained in Articles 38(1) and (2) and 39(a) and (c) of the Constitution of India and that therefore the respondent 2 is to be restrained from carrying out its commercial activities amounting to retail sale, cannot be accepted in view of the considered view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoka Smokeless Coal Ind. (Private) Limited and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. . The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow: