Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.46 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 5 in The Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 [Entire Act]
S.P. Sampath Kumar Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 December, 1986
In S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 386 : (1987 Lab IC 222) the Apex Court while considering provision of Section 28 of Administrative Tribunals Act (13 of 1985) held that 'exclusion of the jurisdiction of the High Court without setting
up an effective alternative institutional mechanism or arrangement for judicial review would be violative of the basic structure doctrine and hence outside the constitutent power of Parliament'. In the case before us we are of the opinion that there is an alternative remedy under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act and therefore, the decision referred does not help the petitioner.
Babu Ram Prakash Chandra Maheshwari vs Antarim Zila Parishad Muzaffar Nagar on 2 August, 1968
Zila Parishad (supra) the dictum that the
doctrine has no application in a case where
the impugned order has been made in viola
tion of principles of natural justice is based on
a five Judge decision of the Apex Court in
U.P. State v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958
SC 86 in which case there was a departmental
trial against a Police Constable before a
Deputy Suprintendent of Police, who, to
contradict the testimony of a prosecution
witnesses, himself gave testimony in the
enquiry. It was held under those circumstances
that principles of natural justice had been
violated.
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Mohammad Nooh on 30 September, 1957
Zila Parishad (supra) the dictum that the
doctrine has no application in a case where
the impugned order has been made in viola
tion of principles of natural justice is based on
a five Judge decision of the Apex Court in
U.P. State v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958
SC 86 in which case there was a departmental
trial against a Police Constable before a
Deputy Suprintendent of Police, who, to
contradict the testimony of a prosecution
witnesses, himself gave testimony in the
enquiry. It was held under those circumstances
that principles of natural justice had been
violated.
Santokh Singh vs Divisional Engineer, Telephones, ... on 26 September, 1989
In this respect the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged on the basis of Santokh Singh v. Divisional Engineer, Telephones, Shillong, AIR 1990 Gau-hati 47 that Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act does not cover a dispute regarding dis-connection of telephone for default. We have considered this argument and we find that in this decision while discussing the matter the Division Bench concerned remarked that it may also be observed that even if a dispute regarding excess billing can be subject matter of arbitration under Section 7B, it would not take away the jurisdiction of the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus this decision does not finally adjudicate upon the question whether Section 7B of the Indian Telegraphs Act is available as an
alternative remedy to the petitioner. We are of the opinion that Section 7B of the aforesaid Act covers a dispute regarding dis-connection and excess billing because it is a dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arising between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the telegraph line, appliance or appratus is, or stands provided. The word 'concerning' used in Section 7B means 'about', 'regarding' 'pertaining to' according to New Lexicon Webstar Dictionary 1987 Edition. Thus dispute regarding safe custody, disconnection, excess billing etc. of the telegraph line, appliance or apparatus is certainly a dispute covered by Section 7B of the Telegraph Act.
Raghubar Dayal Kanodia vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 10 January, 1969
13. Similarly the decision in Raghubar Dayal v. Union of India, AIR 1970 All 143 regarding application of Rule 443 of the Telephone Rules 1951 and requirement of notice before dis-connection raises question of fact and law to be decided by the Arbitrator.
Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs Management Of Hindu Kanya ... on 25 September, 1987
In Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya Sitapur, AIR 1987 SC 2186 : (1987 Lab IC 1901) the High Court had dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. The Apex Court held that It is well established that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition, when an authority has acted wholly without jurisdic-tion, the High Court should not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy. In the present case the demand of additional security and restoration fee cannot be termed as a demand without jurisdiction.