Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Section 39 in Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Section 98 in Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
B.K. Srinivasan & Another Etc. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 January, 1987
Similarly, in the matter of B.K. Srinivasan and Ors. v. State of Karnataka , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question of 'Outline Development Plan & Particulars' to be published by notification in the official gazette in terms of Section 13 of the Karnataka town and Country Planning Act observed as under:
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Singhara Singh And Others on 16 August, 1963
12. It is to be noticed that as per provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the Act of 1994, if a member including Chairperson or a Dy. Chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution is found guilty of misconduct in discharge of duties or any disgraceful conduct, the State Government may remove him from the office after giving him an opportunity of being heard by order in writing. Sub-section (2) of Section 38 further provides that the Chairperson or Dy. Chairperson removed under Sub-section (1) may at the discretion of the State Government also be removed from membership of any of the Panchayati Raj Institution concerned. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the proceedings for removal of Sarpanch for the misconduct committed by him in discharge of his duties or for any disgraceful conduct can be initiated and concluded by the State Government. However, as per the provisions of Section 98 of the Act of 1994, the State Government is empowered to delegate all or any of its power under the Act of 1994 to any officer or authority subordinate to it by publication of the notification in the official gazette. Obviously, it is not possible for the State Government to exercise all the powers vested in it, therefore, in the interest of smooth and convenient administration, the delegation of the power to the subordinate authorities to the extent permissible under the relevant statute cannot be faulted with. But then, the delegation of such power has to be made in the manner laid down under the relevant statutory provision. It is settled law that if statute provides for an act to be performed in a particular manner then, that has to be performed in that manner alone, other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and Ors. , and A.K. Roy and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. .
Section 19 in Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
A.K. Roy & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 29 September, 1986
12. It is to be noticed that as per provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 38 of the Act of 1994, if a member including Chairperson or a Dy. Chairperson of a Panchayati Raj Institution is found guilty of misconduct in discharge of duties or any disgraceful conduct, the State Government may remove him from the office after giving him an opportunity of being heard by order in writing. Sub-section (2) of Section 38 further provides that the Chairperson or Dy. Chairperson removed under Sub-section (1) may at the discretion of the State Government also be removed from membership of any of the Panchayati Raj Institution concerned. Thus, it cannot be disputed that the proceedings for removal of Sarpanch for the misconduct committed by him in discharge of his duties or for any disgraceful conduct can be initiated and concluded by the State Government. However, as per the provisions of Section 98 of the Act of 1994, the State Government is empowered to delegate all or any of its power under the Act of 1994 to any officer or authority subordinate to it by publication of the notification in the official gazette. Obviously, it is not possible for the State Government to exercise all the powers vested in it, therefore, in the interest of smooth and convenient administration, the delegation of the power to the subordinate authorities to the extent permissible under the relevant statute cannot be faulted with. But then, the delegation of such power has to be made in the manner laid down under the relevant statutory provision. It is settled law that if statute provides for an act to be performed in a particular manner then, that has to be performed in that manner alone, other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh and Ors. , and A.K. Roy and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors. .
Sammbhu Nath Jha vs Kedar Prasad Sinha & Ors on 24 January, 1972
In the matter of Shambhoo Nath Jha v. Kedar Prasad Sinha , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the requirement of publication in the gazette "is an imperative requirement and cannot be dispensed with".
Section 25 in Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
1