public purpose may change one from another

In Union of India v. Jaswant Rai Kochhar reported inMANU/SC/0358/1996 : 1996 (3) SCC 491 land acquired for housing scheme was utilised for commercial purpose i.e. a District Centre. This Court held in that matter that it is will settled law that land sought to be acquired forone public purpose may be used for another public purpose. In State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeo Deoman Rai reported in MANU/SC/0471/1990 : 1990 (3) SCC 579 yet another Bench of three Judges had held that requirement of public purpose may change from time to time but the change will not vitiate the acquisition proceeding.

 

Also: JT2011(12)SC298

"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