Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.08 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Union Of India & Anr vs Cynamide India Ltd. & Anr on 10 April, 1987
In this connection we would recall the observations of
Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Union of India and Anr. v. Cynamide
India Ltd. andAnr., [1987] 2 SCC 720 at p. 736:
Section 2 in The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Gupta Sugar Works vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 26 October, 1987
Judicial review is not concerned with matters of econom-
ic policy. The Court does not substitute its judgment for
that of the legislature or its agents as to matters within
the province of either. The Court does not supplant the
"feel of the expert" by its own views. When the legislature
acts within the sphere of its authority and delegates power
to an agent, it may empower the agent to make findings of
fact which are conclusive provided such findings satisfy the
test of reasonable~ ness. In all such cases, judicial in-
quiry is confined to the question whether the findings of
fact are reasonably based on evidence and whether such
findings are consistent with the laws of the land. As rated
by Jagannatha Shetty, J. in M/s. Gupta Sugar Works, (supra):
State Of U.P. And Ors vs Renusagar Power Co. And Others on 28 July, 1988
Price fixation is in the nature of a legislative action
even when it is based on objective criteria rounded on
relevant material. No rule at natural justice is applicable
to any such order. It is nevertheless imperative that the
action of the authority should be inspired by reason. Saras-
wati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., [1975] 1 SCR 956, 961, 962.
The Government cannot fix any arbitrary price. It cannot fix
prices on extraneous considerations: Renusagar, (supra).
Any arbitrary action, whether in the nature of a legis-
lative or administrative or quasi-judicial exercise of
power, is liable to attract the prohibition of Article 14 of
the Constitution.
E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973
As stated in E.P. Royappa v. State of
Tamil Nadu & Anr., [1974] 2 SCR 348, "equality and arbi-
trariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law
in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an
absolute monarch."
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978
Unguided and unrestricted power is af-
fected by the vice of discrimination: Mrs. Maneka Gandhi v.
Union of India & Anr., [1978] 1 SCC 248 at 293-294.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
The
principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 must guide
every state action, whether it be legislative, executive, or
quasi-judicial: Ramana Dayaram 'Shetty v. The International
Airport Authority of India & Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 1014 at
1042; Ajay Hasia & Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors..
[1981] 1 SCC 722 and D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India,
[1983] 1 SCC 305.