Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 59 (0.35 seconds)Section 15 in The Hidayatullah National University of Law, Chhattisgarh Adhiniyam, 2003 [Entire Act]
Section 15 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
The Hidayatullah National University of Law, Chhattisgarh Adhiniyam, 2003
Section 8 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
The Electricity Act, 2003
Bihar Public Service Commission And Anr vs Dr Shiv Jatan Thakur And Ors on 22 July, 1994
9. It is further contended that the ratio of decision rendered in
Bihar Public Service Commission v. S.J. Thakur AIR
1994 S.C. 2466 cannot be applied to the facts of the
present case and it does not support this case as the statute
was not existing. It is further submitted that the petitioner
has come to the Court with specific relief invoking jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, therefore, if the
writ petition after filing of the same is categorized in certain
category, the caption of it and the registration of the petition
will not decide the fate of litigation qua the relief claimed.
Therefore, the "person aggrieved" as has been interpreted
by the learned single judge has been wrongly followed which
do not have any legal sanctity. So he prays that the order of
the learned single judge may be set aside and the relief(s)
claimed by the petitioner may be allowed.
N. C. Shinghal vs Union Of India on 19 March, 1980
92. Likewise, the principles laid down in the matter of Dr.
N.C.Singhal vs. Union of India and others reported in
AIR 1980 SC 1255 as relied upon by learned Single Judge
is also distinguishable from the facts involved in the present
case. That is the case where the appellant had prayed for
his promotion on the post of super time Grade-II while
questioning the promotional orders of respondents by
submitting, inter alia, that they all were not eligible to be
promoted to the post of super time Grade-II under relevant
Rules known as Central Health Service (Amendment) Rules,
1966 (for short, the Amendment Rules, 1966). However, it
was found therein that the appellant himself was not eligible
to be promoted as such and observed further that even if the
promotional orders of the respondents are struck down then
also the appellant would not get any post for his promotion
and, in such circumstances, it was held that the appellant
was not competent enough to question their promotions.
Godde Venkateswara Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 1965
99. At this juncture, the principles laid down in the matter of
Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra
Pradesh and others reported in AIR 1976 SC 828, as
relied upon by Mr.Das, are to be taken into consideration.
Although the said decision was taken into consideration by
the learned Single Judge at paragraph 9.3 of its order
impugned but misunderstood the principles laid therein in its
77
proper perspective, while referring only to some portion of
para 8 of the said judgment. If the said judgment as a whole
is considered, then it would rather support the petitioner's
locus standi to question the order of the Chancellor
extending the extension period of respondent No.5. In the
said matter, a dispute ensued between two villages, namely
Dharmajigudem and Lingapalem in relation to the location of
Primary Health Center. The State of Andhra Pradesh, vide its
order dated 18.04.1963 directed that the said Center should
be located permanently at Lingapalem village in accordance
with the resolution of the Panchayat Samithi dated
29.05.1961 as the resolution was passed on 28.05.1960 by
the Panchayat Samithi where it was resolved that the
Primary Health Center should be permanently located at
Dharmajigudem, which was duly approved by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh. However, the said
resolution dated 28.05.1960 was cancelled by the Panchayat
Samithi later on as it was not passed in accordance with the
relevant rules and resolved to locate the same at
Lingapalem. Pertinently to be noted herein that the
representatives of the Dharmajigudem assured the
representatives of Lingapalem and accorded unanimously to
have located the Primary Health Center at Lingapalem. The
resolution so passed by the Panchayat Samithi was not
accepted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide its
order dated 07.03.1962 for the reasons that the Center was
functioning permanently at the place of Dharmajigudem,
therefore, it could not be shifted to any other place unless
the Panchayat Samithi resolved 2/3rd majority for the same.
78
The said order dated 07.03.1962 was reversed by the State
Government vide its impugned order dated 18.04.1963 as it
was realised by the Government that the said previous order
was passed under some mistaken facts that the Center was
functioning permanently at Dharamajigudem. The order so
passed was questioned by the appellant, who was the
President of the Village Panchayat of the said
Dharamajigudem by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. A preliminary objection was,
therefore, raised by the State Government regarding its
maintainability on the ground that since the appellant had no
personal right in the matter with regard to the location of the
said Center, and therefore, he had no locus standi to
maintain the writ petition. The preliminary objection so
raised was rejected by observing at para -8 as under: