Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)Unnikrishnan P.J. And Ors. vs State Of A.P. And Ors. on 14 May, 1993
Government has in keeping with the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 607 of
1992 between Unnikrishnan J.P. v. State of
A.P.1 decided to discontinue the 12 donor
seats in M.P. Shah Medical College, Jamnagar
and 10 donor seats in Pramuch Swami Medical
College, Karamsad. The decision of the
Government has been communicated to the
trustees concerned vide this department letter
of even No. dated June 22, 1993 requesting
them not to admit any student against the
donor seats.
University Of Delhi & Anr vs Ram Nath on 1 April, 1963
19. We cannot, therefore, agree with the
contrary proposition enunciated in
Sakharkherda Education Society v. State of
3 University of Delhi v. Ram Nath, (1964) 2
SCR 703: AIR 1963 SC 1873: (1963) 2 LLJ 335
4 1957 SCR 874: AIR 1957 SC 874
566
Maharashtra5, Andhra Kesari Education Society
v. Govt. of A.p.6 and Bapuji Educational Assn.
v. State7.
Andhra Kesari Education Society vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 22 November, 1983
19. We cannot, therefore, agree with the
contrary proposition enunciated in
Sakharkherda Education Society v. State of
3 University of Delhi v. Ram Nath, (1964) 2
SCR 703: AIR 1963 SC 1873: (1963) 2 LLJ 335
4 1957 SCR 874: AIR 1957 SC 874
566
Maharashtra5, Andhra Kesari Education Society
v. Govt. of A.p.6 and Bapuji Educational Assn.
v. State7.
Bapuji Educational Association vs State on 3 September, 1984
There was no issue in
controversy between the trust and the Government nor was
there any adjudication by the court on such an issue. For
attracting the rule of res judicata between co-defendants
according to the terms in Section 11 of the Civil Procedure
Code which provision of course is not, in terms, applicable
to proceedings in a writ petition it is necessary that
there should have been some issue directly and substantially
in controversy between them which has been heard and finally
decided by the court. Same would be the position, where a
plea of res judicata is sought to be raised between co-
respondents in a writ petition, on the general principles of
res judicata. Since the said basic requirement is not
satisfied, the said judgment cannot be treated as res
judicata between the trust and the Government. At the most,
it can be used as an instance where the Government had
affirmed the binding nature of the said arrangement but no
more. That does not even give rise to an estoppel in the
facts of this case. Merely because the Government had
contended in 1974 that the said arrangement is a valid one
and binding upon it, it cannot be said that it is precluded
from resiling from the said position even when it has
realised that such an arrangement is contrary to Article 14.
There can be no acquiescence or waiver in such matters. If
an individual cannot waive the fundamental rights conferred
upon him by Part III, the State cannot equally be prevented
from discharging its obligations placed upon it by Part III
by rules of evidence like estoppel, acquiescence or waiver.
Ambika Prasad Mishra Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors. Etc on 9 May, 1980
19. The next decision relied upon is in Ambika Prasad
Mishra v. State of U.P.9 The principle emphasised by the
Constitution Bench in this case is that judicial decisions
should not be reviewed from time to time since such a course
has the effect of making the law uncertain besides keeping
the legislative and administrative decisions on vital issues
in perennial suspense. There can be no quarrel with the
said principle but its relevance herein is very little.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Nawab Hussain on 4 April, 1977
20. Shri Ramaswamy then cited State of U.P. v. Nawab
Hussain10. In that case, the respondent who was dismissed
from service filed a writ petition in the High Court raising
a particular contention. The writ petition was dismissed.
Thereafter, he filed a suit raising another ground of
challenge which was met by the State by raising the plea of
res judicata. This Court held that the respondent was
precluded by the rule of constructive res judicata from
raising the said new ground in the suit which he did not
raise in the writ petition, though it was within his
knowledge and could have been taken in the writ petition.
Asstt. Excise Commissioner vs Issac Peter on 22 February, 1994
22. We are unable to see any substance in the argument that
the termination of arrangement without observing the
principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem) is void.
The termination is not a quasi-judicial act by any stretch
of imagination; hence it was not necessary to observe the
principles of natural justice. It is not also an executive
or administrative act to attract the duty to act fairly. It
was as has been repeatedly urged by Shri Ramaswamy a
matter governed by a contract/agreement between the parties.
If the matter is governed by a contract, the writ petition
is not maintainable since it is a public law remedy and is
not available in private law field, e.g., where the matter
is governed by a non-statutory contract* . Be
9 (1980) 3 SCC 719:(1980) 3 SCR 1159
10 (1977) 2 SCC 806: 1977 SCC (L&S) 362: (1977) 3 SCR 428
11 (1963) 2 SCR 774: AIR 1963 SC 151: (1963) 33 Com Cas
745
In this connection, see Assistant Excise Commissioner v.
Isaac Peter, ( 1994) 4 SCC 104: 1994 (2) J.T. 140 on the
relevance of doctrine of fairness in matters governed by
contract, arrived at calling for tenders, auction or by
negotiations.