Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.16 seconds)

Ghaziabad Development Authority vs Balbir Singh on 17 March, 2004

13.     It is also apposite to note that the District Commission directed the opposite parties 2 to 4 to issue patta in respect of the property of the complainant, which in our considered view is a sovereign function of the State, having no consumer-service provider relationship in it and hence the said direction cannot be sustained in view of the ratio in Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra) and Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Supra).   Since      the direction to issue patta is an intrusion into the sovereign function, we are of the view that the order impugned cannot be sustained and consequently, we set aside the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 1208 - Full Document

Punjab Urban Planning And Development ... vs Vidya Chetal W/O Sh. Suresh Kumar ... on 6 November, 2012

13.     It is also apposite to note that the District Commission directed the opposite parties 2 to 4 to issue patta in respect of the property of the complainant, which in our considered view is a sovereign function of the State, having no consumer-service provider relationship in it and hence the said direction cannot be sustained in view of the ratio in Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra) and Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Supra).   Since      the direction to issue patta is an intrusion into the sovereign function, we are of the view that the order impugned cannot be sustained and consequently, we set aside the same.
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1