Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: allahabad Year: 1995 Page 1 of about 9 results (0.035 seconds)

Feb 06 1995 (HC)

Rana Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-06-1995

Reported in : 1996CriLJ665

..... decided on october 27, 1993, of which m. katju, j. was a member.36. strong reservations were expressed by bahuguna, j. in ajai singh's case to the rationale of the judgments in ganesh chandra bhatt, 1993 (30) acc 204 and devendra pratap singh's cases (supra) civ. misc. writ pet. no. 29963 of 1993, d ..... where, as pointed out earlier, it was held that there could be post-decisional hearing for suspension or revocation of the licence. this being so, the rationale thereof was clearly binding upon the learned single judge and yet, its correctness is being sought to be put under cloud. this is where the principle of binding ..... 1481 : 1990 cri lj 409 (supra) it had been held that a gun licence could be suspended during proceedings for its cancellation. it. was on this rationale that the learned judge concluded with the observations 'i am of the respectful opinion that the two full bench decisions in c.p. sahu's case : air1985all291 ..... of the superior courts and of larger benches have to be followed unhesitatingly whatever doubts one may individually entertain about their correctness. the rationale for this is plain because to seek a universal intellectual unanimity is an ideal too utopian to achieve. consequently, the logic and the ..... the ratio of a larger bench is rested, are not matters open for reconsideration. negatively put, therefore, the challenge to the. rationale and reasoning of a larger bench is not a valid ground for unsettling it and seeking a re-opening and re-examination of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 16 1995 (HC)

Basant Kumar Vs. University of Allahabad and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Feb-16-1995

Reported in : AIR1996All33

..... the-state act or central act or in purported exercise of such jurisdiction were excluded from the preview of the special appeal against a judgment of learned single judge. the rationale for incorporating the aforesaid amendment in the rule is that if any authority either under central or state statute decides a particular matter within the framework of the statute and .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 13 1995 (HC)

Mukesh Ram Chandani and Others Etc. Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Nov-13-1995

Reported in : AIR1996All219; (1995)3UPLBEC2006

..... and 100 of the representation of the people act have been relied upon. starting from the ponnuswami's case (air 1952 sc 64) which has dealt with the scope, amplitude, rationale and limitations of article 329(b), the ratio of the said, case has been consistently followed by the supreme court in several rulings through durga shanker mehta, air 1952 sc .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 31 1995 (HC)

Manvendra Shah, Member of Parliament Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-31-1995

Reported in : AIR1996All92; (1995)2UPLBEC1060

orderravi s. dhavan, j.1. this case is about a dichotomy between the law in its administration as opposed to a unanimous intention of the legislature of ultra pradesh in the applicability of that very law. if either of the factors were absent, there would be no occasion for the high court to examine the issue before it.2. the issue has been raised in more than one writ petition before this court. the present one is the leading case. the prayers of a like nature in other cases will be met by this judgment.3. the matter relates to the divisions of kumaun and garhwal within uttar pradesh. the legislature of uttar pradesh has resolved that this region be known as uttarakhand.4. whatever be the course of politics which occasioned the situation, the high court is not concerned with it. the two houses of the legislature in uttar pradesh on two occasions passed unanimous resolutions, to the effect that the regions of kumaun and garhwal be identified as distinct from the rest of the state and considered to receive autonomy as a state to be known as uttarakhand. one resolution was passed by the houses of the state legislature in 1991 and another in 1994.5. on the resolutions of the houses of the legislature, there is no issue. the petitioner, relies on it. the state government does not deny it.6. this judgment would be incomplete without noticing the two resolutions of the houses of legislature in accepting the region of kumaun and garhwal as distinct in its identity from the rest of .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 26 1995 (HC)

Om Prakash Tewari Vs. District Magistrate, Ballia and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-26-1995

Reported in : AIR1996All115

orderd. k. seth, j.1. the petitioner's case, in short, in the present writ application, is that the petitioner was granted a contract for the period 1-4-1994 to 31-3-1995 for the realisation of tahbazari over bus-taxi stand on ballia sikandarpur road for rs. 20,500/- on the basis of his participation in the auction held on 24th feb. 1994 pursuant to advertisement published in the newspaper. the petitioner had made an application to the district magistrate/ officer incharge, nagarpalika parishad, district ballia, for granting him contract for the period 1995-96 at an enhanced rate of 20% than the earlier year. ignoring the said application, the district magistrate granted a contract to one rameswar singh yadav for the period 1995-96 at an enhanced rate of 20% from the earlier year, namely, for rs. 24,600/-. the petitioner is also ready and agreed to tender the said amount. he has also contended that the contract ought to have been awarded through auction or by inviting tender and not otherwise. therefore, he prays for setting aside the grant of contract to the said rameshwar singh yadav.2. the writ peition is contested by the nagarpalika parishad by filing a counter affidavit. in the said counter affidavit, it has not been asserted that any auction was held or that any notice was published. on the con-trary, it was contended that two applications dated 2nd feb. 1995 and 21st feb. 1995 were received by the respondent from the petitioner. in the first application, he had offered .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 06 1995 (HC)

Sanjeeve Kumar and Another Vs. Election Officer

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-06-1995

Reported in : AIR1995All135; (1995)1UPLBEC309

orderr. a. sharma, j.1. the two questions, namely, (i) whether the constituencies for weaker section for the purpose of election to the committee of management of a cooperative society should be reserved before the issue of notice under sub-rule (2) of rule 441 of the u.p. co-operative societies rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules) notifying the election programme or is it open to the authorities to reserve the constituencies after the election programme has been announced; and (ii) whether it is open to the authorities to reserve the same constituencies for weaker section, which were reserved in the last election, have been raised in these petitions.2. first question referred to above is involved in all these writ petitions, whereas the second question is involved only in two writ petitions nos. 37886 of 1994 and 37398 of 1994. with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties writ petition no. -376886 of 1994 has been made the leading case, the fact of which will be narrated hereinafter and the facts of other cases will be referred to only when it is found necessary.3. we have heard learned counsel for the petitioners. sri shashi nandan learned counsel for the registrar, co-operative societies, sri a. kumar, learned counsel for other respondents and the learned counsel for other respondents and the learned standing counsel. parties have exchanged affidavits.4. petitioner in writ petition no. 37886 of 1994 is co-operative cane development society ltd. daurala, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 1995 (HC)

Shamim Haider and Another Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut and ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-13-1995

Reported in : AIR1995All385

orderd.k. seth, j.1. the petitioner case in the writ petition, inter alia, was that the route muzaffarnagar mawana-via kukra singha-wali mansoorpur nawia khatauli falawade, is about 52 kms. the petitioners along with several others had applied for grant of permit for stage carriages on the said route muzaffarnagar mawana via kukra singawali mansoorpur, village mansoorpur, nawala khatauli falawada.2. such application of the petitioners along with others were considered by the regional transport authority (herein after-referred to as r.t.a.) in its meeting held on 26-9-1994. the r.t.a. granted permits to all the applications, who had applied till 26-9-1994. since the petitioner has also applied within 26-9-1994, they were also intimated about the grant of permits in their favour and were asked by letter dated 10-10-1994 to left their permits within fifteen days. it was contended by the petitioners that before granting permits, the strength of the route was fixed as 35 buses on the basis of report of the assistant regional transport officer (enforcement), muzaffarnagar, who had conducted a survey of the route.3. the r.t.a. imposed conditions that since the strength of buses was ficed at 35, therefore, 35 permits would be granted on the basis of 'first come first serve.' the petitioners had made application on 25-10-1994 before the r.t.a. issuing the permits but the respondent no. 2 refused to entertain the said application on the ground the 35 permits have already been granted. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 13 1995 (HC)

Satya Deo Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jul-13-1995

Reported in : [1995(71)FLR430]; (1996)IIILLJ793All; (1995)3UPLBEC1410

orderm. katju, j.1. this writ petition has been filed against the impugned termination order dated march 16, 1988 (annexure 3 to the writ petition). i have heard sri. b.n. rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.2. the petitioner was appointed temporarily on august 1, 1970 on the post of agriculture teacher and joined his post on august 14.1970 in higher secondary school, singli, district pithoragarh. after having selected by the department. it is also stated in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that since then the petitioner has been continuously working on the said post with an unblemished record of service. he was thereafter transferred from place to place but was not regularised. it has also been stated in paragraph 6 of the petition that since juniors to the petitioners had been regularised, he made representations in 1985 and 1987 to the additional director (basic) to confirm him, but no action was taken. true copies of; his representations arc annexures-1 and 2. the petitioner's service was terminated by the order dated march 16.1988, true copy of which is annexure-3 to the writ petition. perusal of annexure-3 shows that the only reason given in the impugned order is that the petitioner's services are no longer required. aggrieved, this writ petition was filed in this court, and the impugned termination order was stayed.3. counter-affidavit has been filed by respondents. in paragraph 3 it has been stated that the petitioner was appointed on .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 08 1995 (HC)

Mehandi Hasan Vs. the State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : May-08-1995

Reported in : 1996CriLJ687

i.s. mathur, j.1. arbitrariness in state action, in consideration and disposal of matters relating to premature release under section 2 of the u. p. prisoners release on probation act, 1938, hereinafter referred to as probation act, and the rules, continues unabated. neither the clear provision of the act and the rules nor numerous judgments of hon'ble supreme court and of this court, authoritatively interpreting these provisions and categorically laying down the guidelines seem to pursuade. far less to compel, the authorities to act in accordance with law. the categorically directions of hon'ble supreme court and of this court that the reports of the concerned authorities, the probation officer, superintendent of police, district magistrate and the board as also the order passed by the state government, must be based on reasons continue to be violated. perhaps, these authorities are under a misunderstanding that the law laid down by hon'ble supreme court or by this court is binding only between the parties. they will do well to understand the established legal position that law laid down by hon'ble supreme court is not only binding between the parties but it is equally binding on all the authorities in india. likewise the law laid down by this court is binding not only between the parties but on all the authorities amenable to the jurisdiction of this court (see amrit lal berry v. collector of central excise, new delhi, : (1975)illj144sc , devi das madho prasad, agra v. .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //