Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.27 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Izhar Ahmad Khan vs Union Of India on 16 February, 1962
In Md. Ayub Khan v. Commr. of Police , the Supreme Court did not entertain the plea which had been sought to be advanced before it namely., that Izhar Ahmed's case required reconsideration as certain aspects of the question had not been brought to the notice of the Court. The Court, however, construed and interpreted the provisions which are required to be applied by us also namely., Section 9 of the Citizenship Act and Rule 30 and Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules.
Mohd. Ayub Khan vs Commissioner Of Police, Madras And ... on 5 February, 1965
In Md. Ayub Khan v. Commr. of Police , the Supreme Court did not entertain the plea which had been sought to be advanced before it namely., that Izhar Ahmed's case required reconsideration as certain aspects of the question had not been brought to the notice of the Court. The Court, however, construed and interpreted the provisions which are required to be applied by us also namely., Section 9 of the Citizenship Act and Rule 30 and Schedule III of the Citizenship Rules.
Mohammed Illyas vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 15 September, 1990
In Mohd. Ilyas v. Union of India (cited supra) one of the contentions raised before the Supreme Court was that the Government of India was bound to give a personal hearing to those who make representations under Section 9(2) or to afford opportunity to them to adduce oral evidence. This question was expressly left open, the Supreme Court observing that on the facts of that case it was unnecessary to decide the point (see para.6 of the report). In paragraph 14 of the report there is reference to the pleas contained in the representation made by the aggrieved person and it is observed that it was not his case that he was compelled or forced to obtain a passport from Pakistan or that he was the victim of any fraud. On these pleas, therefore, the Supreme Court rejected the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant holding that no occasion arose for the Government to give him a personal hearing or to give him an opportunity to adduce oral evidence. It is, thus, clear that in the said decision, on the facts of the case the Supreme Court kept the question open namely., whether the person served with a show cause notice had a right of personal hearing or to adduce oral evidence and merely observed that on the admitted facts of the case and after considering the pleas it could not be said that further opportunity was required to be given to him to substantiate his contention.