Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)Prabhat College vs Barkatullah University on 31 July, 2012
6 . Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel for the State that the
petition is entirely misconceived and filed by an association not having any
authority to file the petition. Reliance is placed on judgment of Division
Bench in the case of Prabhat Vs. Barkatulla University reported in ILR 2011
MP 1692, wherein it has been laid down by Division Bench of this Court that
petition on behalf of association is maintainable only if there is a resolution
to the effect that all the members of association have agreed to be bound by
the decision being passed in such petition being filed by association.
State Of Orissa And Ors vs Bhikari Charan Khuntia And Ors. Etc on 22 September, 2003
In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Bihari Charan Khuntia reported in 2003
(10) SCC 144, the Supreme Court has held that no interference in policy
decisions should be made in writ jurisdiction unless it is shown to be
arbitrary.
Union Of India vs Pushpa Rani & Ors on 29 July, 2008
Similar was the view taken in the case of Union of India Vs.
Pushpa Rani, reported in 2008 (9) SCC 242, wherein it was held as under :-
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Ram Lubhaya Bagga Etc. Etc on 26 February, 1998
In State of Punjab and others Vs. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and others (1998)
Signature Not Verified
4 SCC 117 , the Supreme Court has held that a judicial reviewing policy
Signed by: KRISHNA
SINGH
Signing time: 30-08-2024
5.42.57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42934
11 WP-20865-2024
matter which is wisdom of the policy cannot be judicially scrutinized though
the Court can consider whether the policy is arbitrary or violative of law. It
was held as under :-
State Of Jharkhand & Ors vs Ashok Kumar Dangi & Ors on 4 July, 2011
21. The same has been reiterated in the case of State of Jharkhand and others
Vs. Ashok Kumar Dangi (2011) 13 SCC 383 and it has been held as under :-
M/S. M.R.F. Ltd vs Manohar Parrikar & Ors on 3 May, 2010
25. The counsel for petitioner had relied on the case of MRF Ltd. v.
Manohar Parrikar reported in (2010) 11 SCC 374 to submit that the Rules of
Signature Not Verified
Business are binding and mandatory. Upon perusal of Paras 89 & 90 of the
Signed by: KRISHNA
SINGH
Signing time: 30-08-2024
5.42.57 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:42934
14 WP-20865-2024
said judgment, the said proposition is settled in law. However, it is the
contention of the State that there has been no violation of the Rules of
Business in the present case.
1