Financial Burden & Cut Off Date

In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Amar Nath Goyal and Ors., VI (2005) SLT 313=(2005) 6 SCC 754 this Court had occasion to consider the very same issue. After referring to a number of other authorities, it was held that financial constraints could be a valid ground for introducing a cut-off date while introducing a pension scheme on revised basis. Thus, refusal to make payments of arrears from 1.1.1986 to 28.2.1989 on the ground of financial burden cannot be held to be an arbitrary ground or irrational consideration. Hence, the argument based on Article 14 of the Constitution must fail.

Withdrawal of Schemes by Government

Any concession given pursuant to a scheme of the State can be withdrawn anytime, and for its continuation Writ Petition will not lie.  Bannari Amman Sugars LTD v. Commercial Tax Officer, 2005(1) SCC 625

Naming of Districts - Power of State

Naming of districts – power of the State. See Dr. V Balasundaram v. Chief Minister of Tamil Naldu, AIR1994Mad20

Doctrine of Political Questions

Doctrine of political questions' the court will not entertain matters that are inherently political and do not involve legal question, or where the questions involved are overtly political          Databhau v. State of Maharashta, 2007(3)BomCR667 (Bombay High Court)

Difference between "no opportunity" and "no adequate opportunity"

JT (1996) 3 SC 722
28 LCD (1) 263 (2010)

Special Appeal Pending - Writ Petitioner's interest to be protected

When special appeal involving the same questions of law which are subject matter of a fresh writ petition is pending adjudication, the interest of the writ petitioner is to be protected in the interim. 

Writ Petition No. 4047 of 2012 (S/S) dated 24.8.2012

Strict Construction of Taxing Statutes

A taxing statute, as is well-known, must be construed strictly. In Sneh
Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs [2006] 7 SCC 714, it was held :

"While dealing with a taxing provision, the principle of 'Strict Interpre-
tation should be applied. The Court shall not interpret the statutory
provision in such a manner which would create an additional fiscal burden on
a person. It would never be done by invoking the provisions of another Act,
which are not attracted. It is also trite that while two interpretations are
possible, the Court ordinarily would interpret the provisions in favour of a
taxpayer and against the Revenue."