Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
Kachchh vs Nilesh on 11 August, 2011 cites

State Of U.P. And Ors vs Renusagar Power Co. And Others on 28 July, 1988

One of the points that falls for determination is the scope for judicial interference in matters of administrative decisions. Administrative action is stated to be referable to broad area of Governmental activities in which the repositories of power may exercise every class of statutory function of executive, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial nature. It is trite law that exercise of power, whether legislative or administrative, will be set aside if there is manifest error in the exercise of such power or the exercise of the power is manifestly arbitrary (See State of U.P. and Ors. v. Renusagar Power Co., (1988) 4 SCC 59 : AIR 1988 SC 1737. At one time, the traditional view in England was that the executive was not answerable where its action was attributable to the exercise of prerogative power. Professor De Smith in his classical work "Judicial Review of Administrative Action" 4th Edition at pages 285-287 states the legal position in his own terse language that the relevant principles formulated by the Courts may be broadly summarized as follows. The authority in which discretion is vested can be compelled to exercise that discretion, but not to exercise it in any particular manner. In general, discretion must be exercised only by the authority to which it is committed. That authority must genuinely address itself to the matter before it; it must not act under the dictates of another body or disable itself from exercising discretion in each individual case. In the purported exercise of its discretion, it must not do what it has been forbidden to do, nor must it do what it has not been authorized to do. It must act in good faith, must have regard to all relevant considerations and must not be influenced by irrelevant considerations, must not seek to promote purposes alien to the letter or to the spirit of the legislation that gives it power to act, and must not act arbitrarily or capriciously. These several principles can conveniently be grouped in two main categories: (I) failure to exercise a discretion, and (ii) excess or abuse of discretionary power. The two classes are not, however, mutually exclusive. Thus, discretion may be improperly fettered because irrelevant considerations have been taken into account, and where an authority hands over its discretion to another body it acts ultra vires.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 351 - S Mukharji - Full Document

M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath & Ors on 13 December, 1996

The Supreme Court has made this explicit in M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 388 by holding that these natural resources are meant for the public use and cannot be converted into private ownership. Step in this direction is taken by the State Government by declaring Draft of the State Water Policy (2002). Announcements on Water Resources Planning, Development and Management in paragraph 4 of the Policy statement include the strategy of making efforts "to protect and use all fresh water / natural resources like lakes, tanks, ponds, talavadis, springs etc. and preservation of existing freshwater bodies shall be ensured.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 356 - K Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next