Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)Article 243G in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 243H in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 1 in Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 [Entire Act]
Pratap Singh Damor vs The State Of Rajasthan on 23 October, 2018
The reply further states that no doubt the order dated 17-
5-2018, impugned in SBCWP No.8787/2018, Pratap Singh
Damor (supra), was indeed withdrawn and the said petition was
accordingly dismissed as infructuous. Yet that situation did not
restrain the State Government in law to resort to its reservoir of
executive and administrative powers in consonance with the Act
of 1994 and the Rules of 1996, as has been done vide the
impugned order dated 5-10-2018. The order has also
specifically stated that additional charge of VLW-cum-PS when
vacant not be given to any other staff of the said Panchayat. It
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:51:46 AM)
23
has been in the facts submitted that the petitions are wholly
without merit, lacking absolutely in legal foundation and are
deserving of dismissal.
A.Shanmugam vs Ariya K.R.K.M.N.P.Sangam Tr.Pres.Etc on 27 April, 2012
These petitions are in fact an outstanding illustration of
what inter alia ails the administration of justice in courts.
Frivolous and baseless petitions wagering on a beneficial order,
even if interim, occasioned by the institutional incapacity of the
courts to, at the outset exparte scrutinize merits of a case at all
times for reason of docket over load and overarching work
pressure must be nipped in the bud. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of A. Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula
Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Patipalanai Sangam [(2012) 6
SCC 430] has held that experience reveals that a large number
of cases are inter alia filed on false claims to cause delay in the
administration of justice and this can only be adequately taken
care of if the courts adopt realistic approach in granting
restitution and visiting the petitioner with appropriate costs.
Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors vs Nirmala Devi & Ors on 4 July, 2011
Relying on the judgment in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi Vs.
Nirmala Devi [(2011) 8 SCC 249] the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that "unless wrongdoers are denied profit or undue
benefit from frivolous litigations, it would be difficult to control
frivolous and uncalled-for litigations. False averments of facts
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:51:46 AM)
26
and untenable contentions are serious problems faced by courts
and the other problem is that litigants deliberately create
confusion by introducing irrelevant and minimally relevant
facts and documents. The court cannot reject such claims,
defences and pleas at the first look and requires some time, at
time years, before the court is able to see through, discern and
reach to the truth." Dissuading of frivolous petitions including
by way of appropriate costs in some manner is the idea writ
large in the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above.
1