Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)Pavankumar Jain & vs Priyavadan Ambalal Patel & on 12 September, 2013
9. Mr P.J.Mehta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner,
in rejoinder, has submitted that the findings given by the learned
Charity Commissioner, are incorrect. Specific reliance was placed on
the judgement by the petitioner in the case of Pavankumar Jain vs.
Priyavadan Ambalal Patel passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1132
of 2013 wherein, it has been held that for the purpose of smooth
administration of the Trust, the learned Charity Commissioner is
fully authorised to take decision. It is submitted that the learned
Charity Commissioner, is empowered to issue any appropriate
direction for smooth administration of the Trust. It is therefore,
submitted that when the learned Charity Commissioner had all the
powers to issue direction for smooth administration of the Trust, the
learned Charity Commissioner ought not to have disposed of the
application with liberty to the petitioner to move the Collector,
Banaskantha, Assistant Charity Commissioner, Vigilance
Commissioner, to canvass his grievance. It is therefore, submitted
that the petition requires consideration and deserves to be allowed.
Dir. Of Settlements, A.P. & Ors vs M.R. Apparao & Anr on 20 March, 2002
Apt would be the observations made in paragraph 17 of the
judgment in the case of Director of Settlements, A.P. vs. M.R.
Apparao reported in (2002) 4 SCC 638, which reads thus:-
Kalyan Singh vs State Of U. P on 11 December, 1961
In order to obtain a writ or
order in the nature of mandamus, the applicant has to satisfy
that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by
the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right
must be subsisting on the date of the petition (Kalyan Singh vs.
State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1183). The duty that may be enjoined
by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, a
statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of
law.
1