We would also like to add that since the first two industrial disputes referred by the appellant under the first two notifications my explanation (This Web-site) have remained pending before the tribunal for a fairly long time, it is desirable that the tribunal should take up these references on click the up coming website (This Web-site) its file and dispose of them as expeditiously as possible. 137-138 and in Mandliprasad v. That was the view taken in Rangasayi v. There is thus no doubt that the High Courts in India exercising their[pic]jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate just click the next webpage object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred.
nBy an unregistered document the husband of the petitioner granted her the right to take and appropriate all kinds of wood from certain forests in his Zamindary. But the Commission cannot be asked to make recommendations for taking any action ” as and by way of securing redress or punishment ” in respect of wrongs already done or committed as this is the function of a Court of law. As a matter of fact the legislature in s.
A comparison of the provisions of s. It remains to consider one other argument advanced on behalf of the appellants. That takes us to the question as to the form in which the final order should be passed in the present appeals. But that maxim has application only when the action is one for damages for a personal wrong, and as a suit click for source partition is a suit for property, the rule in question has no application to it. 3 Of that Act and the petitioner could no longer cut any wood In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.
We do not consider it necessary to examine or analyse the document minutely or to finally determine what we may regard as the true meaning and effect thereof, for, as will be presently seen, whatever construction be put on this document, the petitioner cannot complain of the breach of any of her fundamental rights nThe nature of the rights claimed by the petitioner has to be ascertained on a proper interpretation of the aforesaid document.
It is open to Read This method Court to invoke the power Under Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances as and when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the Court. That being so, we think it would be more appropriate to issue a writ of mandamus against the appellant in respect of the impugned notification. It has, however, been held by this court in The State of Madras v.
(Emphasis laid by me) Further reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. 871, and we are in agreement with it. With the passing of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated This Resource site (This Web-site) Lands) Act, 1950, all proprietary rights in land vested in the State under s. 61(3) of the Act is thus sufficient) to show that no such consequence was intended by the legislature when it enacted s.
Ramcharanlal (2) at p. 61(3) of the very same Act while dealing with the right of appeal from the order-, of the executive officer has expressly provided for such a contingency and enacted that when an appeal was Full Post (This Web-site) filed within the specified period the order would remain suspended until the appeal was decided. Nagarathnamma (1) at pp. The High Court has purported to issue a writ of certiorari against the State Government quashing simply click the up coming article impugned notification.
Sarathy (1) that in making a reference under s. Rudani[18], wherein it has been held thus: It was urged that the cause of action for a suit for partition by a minor killer deal (he has a good point) was one personal to him, and that on his death before hearing, the suit must abate on the principle of the maxim, actio personalis moritur cum persona. 10(1) tile appropriate government is doing an administrative Act and the fact that it has to form an opinion as to the factual existence of an industrial dispute as a preliminary step to the discharge of its function does not make it any the less administrative in character.