Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.37 seconds)
Pathan Mohammed Suleman Rehmatkhan vs State Of Gujarat - Through Principal ... on 12 September, 2014
cites
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Another on 9 May, 1980
131.Similar deviation from auction cannot be
ruled out when the object of a State policy
is to promote domestic development of an
industry, like in Kasturi Lal's case,
discussed above. However, these examples are
Page 27 of 41
C/WPPIL/98/2013 JUDGMENT
purely illustrative in order to demonstrate
that auction cannot be the sole criteria for
alienation of all natural resources."
Bhanubhai Nagabai Odedara vs State Of Gujarat & 3....Opponent(S) on 22 January, 2014
In
case of Bhanubhai Nagabhai Odedara vs.
State of Gujarat and ors. (supra), the
Division Bench observed asunder:
Pathan Mohammed Suleman Rehmatkhan vs State Of Gujarat Thro Chief Secretary on 27 September, 2013
8. With respect to the petitioner's
contention that CAG in its report pointed
out loss of Government revenue, we may
profitably refere to the observations of
this Court in case of Pathan Mohammed
Suleman Rehmatkhan vs. State of Gujarat
Through Principal Secretary & ors(supra)
as under:
State Of Tamil Nadu, Etc, Etc vs L. Abu Kavur Bai And Ors. Etc on 31 October, 1983
"92. It is obvious, therefore, that in view
of the vast range of transactions
contemplated by the word 'distribution' as
mentioned in the dictionaries referred to
above, it will not be correct to construe
the word 'distribution' in a purely literal
sense so as to mean only division of a
particular kind or to particular persons.
The words, apportionment, allotment,
allocation, classification, clearly fall
within the broad sweep of the word
'distribution'. So construed, the word
'distribution' as used in Article 39(b) will
include various facets, aspects, methods and
Page 16 of 41
C/WPPIL/98/2013 JUDGMENT
terminology of a broadbased concept of
distribution..."
State Of Karnataka And Anr Etc vs Shri Ranganatha Reddy & Anr. Etc on 11 October, 1977
117.In The State of Karnataka and Anr. Vs.
Shri Ranganatha Reddy and Anr.51, Justice
Krishna Iyer observed that keeping in mind
the purpose of an Article like 39(b), a
broad rather than a narrow meaning should be
given to the words of that Article. In his
inimitable style, his Lordship opined thus:
Bennett Coleman & Co. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 October, 1972
C/WPPIL/98/2013 JUDGMENT
Thus "common good" is a norm in Article
39(b) whose applicability was considered by
this Court on the facts of the case. Even in
that case, this Court did not evolve
economic criteria of its own to achieve the
goal of "common good" in Article 39(b),
which is part of the Directive Principles.
Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther vs Kerala Financial Corporation on 17 November, 1987
124.In Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther Vs. Kerala
Financial Corpn.54, after an exhaustive
review of the law including the decisions in
Kasturi Lal (supra) and Sachidanand Pandey
(supra), it was held that public disposal of
State owned properties is not the only rule.
It was, interalia, observed that:
M.P. Oil Extraction And Anr. Etc vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors on 9 July, 1997
125.In M.P. Oil Extraction and Anr. Vs.
State of M.P. & Ors.55, this Court held as
follows: