Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.50 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 21 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Shayara Bano vs Union Of India And Ors. Ministry Of Women ... on 22 August, 2017
(xii) So also, learned counsel for the petitioner is
right in his contention that the power of the State
Government under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act
is circumscribed, restricted and limited by the
constitutional provisions, in particular, Articles 14 and 21
of the Constitution of India; in this context, it is
significant to note that consequent upon issuance of the
impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021, the
circular dated 02.07.2020 and order dated 05.05.2021
are sought to be withdrawn, thereby denying more than
50 lakhs beneficiaries in Karnataka, the right to
nutritious food, particularly to pregnant women, lactating
mothers and children whose fundamental rights under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated and
on this score also, the impugned orders being arbitrary
and capricious under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India deserve to be quashed in view of the decisions of
the Apex Court in the case of Shayara Bano vs. Union of
India1 and Dipika Jagatram Sahani vs. Union of India &
others2.
Dipika Jagatram Sahani vs Union Of India on 13 January, 2021
(xii) So also, learned counsel for the petitioner is
right in his contention that the power of the State
Government under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act
is circumscribed, restricted and limited by the
constitutional provisions, in particular, Articles 14 and 21
of the Constitution of India; in this context, it is
significant to note that consequent upon issuance of the
impugned orders dated 15.05.2021 and 20.05.2021, the
circular dated 02.07.2020 and order dated 05.05.2021
are sought to be withdrawn, thereby denying more than
50 lakhs beneficiaries in Karnataka, the right to
nutritious food, particularly to pregnant women, lactating
mothers and children whose fundamental rights under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated and
on this score also, the impugned orders being arbitrary
and capricious under Article 14 of the Constitution of
India deserve to be quashed in view of the decisions of
the Apex Court in the case of Shayara Bano vs. Union of
India1 and Dipika Jagatram Sahani vs. Union of India &
others2.
Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Lrs vs Vinod Kumar Rawat on 3 November, 2020
the Government Circular dated 02.07.2020 as well
as Government Order dated 05.05.2021 have been
considered and appreciated extensively by this
Court in the impugned order, which does not suffer
from any illegality or infirmity, much less any error
or mistake apparent on the face of the record
warranting interference by this Court and on this
ground also, having regard to the extremely limited
/ restricted scope of review petition as held by the
Apex Court in several judgments including the case
of Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat - Civil
Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020, we are of
the considered opinion that there is no merit in this
review petition and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
Dalip Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009
10. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex
Court in the case of DALIP SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P.3 in
the circumstances becomes apposite. The Apex Court has held
as follows:
Hari Narain vs Badri Das on 4 March, 1963
In Hari Narain v. Badri Das [AIR 1963 SC
1558] this Court adverted to the aforesaid rule and
revoked the leave granted to the appellant by making
the following observations: (AIR p. 1558)
"It is of utmost importance that in making material
statements and setting forth grounds in applications for
special leave made under Article 136 of the
Constitution, care must be taken not to make any
statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading.
In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court
naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact
contained in the petitions at their face value and it
would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court
by making statements which are untrue and
misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the appeal the
Supreme Court is satisfied that the material statements
made by the appellant in his application for special
leave are inaccurate and misleading, and the
respondent is entitled to contend that the appellant
may have obtained special leave from the Supreme
Court on the strength of what he characterises as
misrepresentations of facts contained in the petition for
special leave, the Supreme Court may come to the
conclusion that in such a case special leave granted to
the appellant ought to be revoked."