Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.54 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 11 in The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
S.R.Tewari vs Union Of India & Anr on 28 May, 2013
11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard in the case of "S. R. Tewari Vs.
Union of India", (2013) 6 SCC 602 in paragraphs 19, 20 & 21 have
held as under:-
Commissioner Of Income Tax,Bombay And ... vs Mahindra And Mahindra Limited & Ors on 2 September, 1983
In the case of CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,
AIR 1984 SC 1182, this Court held that various
parameters of the court's power of judicial review of
administrative or executive action on which the court
can interfere had been well settled and it would be
redundant to recapitulate the whole catena of
decisions. The Court further held:
Tata Cellular vs Union Of India on 26 July, 1994
20. The court can exercise the power of judicial review
if there is a manifest error in the exercise of power or
the exercise of power is manifestly arbitrary or if the
power is exercised on the basis of facts which do not
13
exist and which are patently erroneous. Such exercise
of power would stand vitiated. The court may be
justified in exercising the power of judicial review if
the impugned order suffers from mala fide, dishonest
or corrupt practices, for the reason, that the order had
been passed by the authority beyond the limits
conferred upon the authority by the legislature. Thus,
the court has to be satisfied that the order had been
passed by the authority only on the grounds of
illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
before it interferes. The court does not have the
expertise to correct the administrative decision.
Therefore, the court itself may be fallible and
interfering with the order of the authority may impose
heavy administrative burden on the State or may lead
to unbudgeted expenditure. (Vide: Tata Cellular v.
Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11; People's Union for
Civil Liberties & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2004
SC 456; and State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr. v. Sanjeev
alias Bittoo, AIR 2005 SC 2080)."
People'S Union For Civil Liberties & Anr vs Union Of India on 16 December, 2003
20. The court can exercise the power of judicial review
if there is a manifest error in the exercise of power or
the exercise of power is manifestly arbitrary or if the
power is exercised on the basis of facts which do not
13
exist and which are patently erroneous. Such exercise
of power would stand vitiated. The court may be
justified in exercising the power of judicial review if
the impugned order suffers from mala fide, dishonest
or corrupt practices, for the reason, that the order had
been passed by the authority beyond the limits
conferred upon the authority by the legislature. Thus,
the court has to be satisfied that the order had been
passed by the authority only on the grounds of
illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
before it interferes. The court does not have the
expertise to correct the administrative decision.
Therefore, the court itself may be fallible and
interfering with the order of the authority may impose
heavy administrative burden on the State or may lead
to unbudgeted expenditure. (Vide: Tata Cellular v.
Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11; People's Union for
Civil Liberties & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2004
SC 456; and State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr. v. Sanjeev
alias Bittoo, AIR 2005 SC 2080)."
State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Anr vs Sanjeev @ Bittoo on 4 April, 2005
20. The court can exercise the power of judicial review
if there is a manifest error in the exercise of power or
the exercise of power is manifestly arbitrary or if the
power is exercised on the basis of facts which do not
13
exist and which are patently erroneous. Such exercise
of power would stand vitiated. The court may be
justified in exercising the power of judicial review if
the impugned order suffers from mala fide, dishonest
or corrupt practices, for the reason, that the order had
been passed by the authority beyond the limits
conferred upon the authority by the legislature. Thus,
the court has to be satisfied that the order had been
passed by the authority only on the grounds of
illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety
before it interferes. The court does not have the
expertise to correct the administrative decision.
Therefore, the court itself may be fallible and
interfering with the order of the authority may impose
heavy administrative burden on the State or may lead
to unbudgeted expenditure. (Vide: Tata Cellular v.
Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11; People's Union for
Civil Liberties & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2004
SC 456; and State of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr. v. Sanjeev
alias Bittoo, AIR 2005 SC 2080)."
Air India Ltd. vs Cochin International Airport Ltd. on 31 January, 2000
In Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd.,
AIR (2000) SC 801, this Court explaining the scope of
judicial review held that the court must act with great
caution and should exercise such power only in
furtherance to public interest and not merely on the
making out of a legal point. The court must always
keep the larger public interest in mind in order to
decide whether its intervention is called for or not."