Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.59 seconds)Section 310 in Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 [Entire Act]
Union Of India And Anr vs S.B. Vohra And Ors on 5 January, 2004
In such cases, that might not strictly fall in the category of
public interest litigation and for which other remedies are available,
insofar as the issuance of a writ of mandamus is concerned, this Court held
in Union of India v. S.B. Vohra[6] that:
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. ... vs Union Of India on 30 August, 1974
38. A salutary principle or a well recognized rule that needs to be kept
in mind before issuing a writ of mandamus was stated in Saraswati
Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India[7] in the following words:
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan vs State Of Gujarat on 3 September, 1997
In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat[9] this Court
held that it is primarily the responsibility and duty of a statutory
authority to take a decision and it should be enabled to exercise its
discretion independently. If the authority does not exercise its mind
independently, the decision taken by the statutory authority can be quashed
and a direction given to take an independent decision. It was said:
R & M Trust vs Koramangala Resi. Vigilance Group & Ors on 19 January, 2005
19. After going through the affidavits filed by the various parties and
after hearing learned counsel, the High Court allowed the writ petition
filed by Nagalaxmi Bai by its impugned judgment and order dated 19th
October, 2012. The High Court held that the two plots of Sadananda Gowda
and Jeevaraj were amalgamated despite the refusal to grant permission to do
so by the BDA and also that a ‘homogenous structure’ had come up on the
amalgamated plots. There was, therefore, a violation of condition No. 4 of
the lease-cum-sale agreement. The High Court also held that the building
plan sanctioned by the BBMP on 22nd July, 2010 was in violation of
condition No. 4 of the lease-cum-sale agreement and that the subsequent
modifications were an exercise in ‘belated damage control’. The High Court
considered the decision of this Court in R & M Trust v. Koramangala
Residents Vigilance Group[4] and held it inapplicable to the facts of the
case. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the orders sanctioning the
building construction plans in favour of Sadananda Gowda and Jeevaraj by
the BBMP and directed the BDA to take action against them in terms of
condition No. 4 of the lease-cum-sale agreement as well as the affidavit in
the form of an undertaking given by them to the BDA for abiding by the
terms and conditions thereof and the allotment rules.
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976
Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra vs State Of U.P on 30 August, 1988
35. However, we note that generally speaking, procedural technicalities
ought to take a back seat in public interest litigation. This Court held in
Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.[5] to this effect
as follows:
1