"Person Aggrieved"

Allahabad High Court

MISC. SINGLE No. - 7254 of 2011 (Committee of Management)

MISC. SINGLE No. - 1794 of 2010 (Subsequent withdrawal of power to prosecute, loss of locus standi)

MISC. SINGLE No. - 316 of 2012 (Subsequent allottee) 

Supreme Court

(1975) 2 SCC 702 (Bar Council v. MV Dabholkar)

(1976) 1 SCC 671 (Jasbhai Motibhai)

 

 

 

 

Witness/ Judge and proseuctor cannot be the same person

http://www.stpl-india.in/SCJFiles/2010_STPL(Web)_773_SC.pdf

 

 

Appellate order not to be passed by the same officer who has passed the basic order impugned in appeal.

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24629 of 2012
Petitioner :- Mohd. Chand And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Satish Mandhyan
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.

 

Appellate order not to be passed by the same officer who has passed the basic order impugned in appeal.

Justice Anil Kumar on Review

Chandra Bhushan Pandey
7770 MB of 2011
2012 1 ADJ 399

Condonation of delay on the ground of lack of funds

Delay of 127 days condoned as the person was unemployed and cud not manage sufficient funds

Navneet Kumar v. State of UP 2012 (1) ADJ 377

Expedite - consumer forum

Delay in proceeding because of lack of quorum - expedite application allowed
2012 (1) ADJ 26

Second Appeal - Whether defendant can be heard at admission stage

2010 (2) SCC 239

 

The court has to formulate substantial question of law while admitting the appeal and it is the duty of the court to hear the defendant/respondent .

Petition at the instance of rival / competitor is not maintainable

Dinesh Prasad Seth 2003 6 AWC5547
Om Saran v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chandausi, Moradabad MANU/UP/0064/1995 : AIR 1995 All 315;
Northern Plastic Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Film Mfg. Co. Ltd.. MANU/SC/1151/1997 : JT 1997 (3) (SC) 101
Mithlesh Garg v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0075/1992 : AIR 1992 SC 443
Dharam Raj v. State of UP, 2010 2 AWC1878

 

cut off date

 

·         In the case of Shankar K. Mandal and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0330/2003: [2003]3SCR796: AIR 2003 SC 4043 , the Hon'ble Apex Court also accepted the above settled principle that (i) The cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules, (ii) if there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications. (iii) If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority.

 

 

·         U.P. Public Service Commission vs Alpana 1994 SCC (2) 723

The same view was reiterated in M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka (2003) 7 SCC 517 and Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54. Therefore, the Full Bench of the High Court rightly held that a candidate who does not possess driving licence on the last date fixed for submission of the application is not eligible to be considered for selection.

Alka Ojha v. Rajasthan State Public Service Commission, AIR2011SC3547

Recall of orders passed by consent (especially Order 23)

AIR2003All337, 2003 4 AWC2809, III(2003)BC388, (2003)2UPLBEC1366