Land recorded in the pond must not be allowed to be allotted to any body for construction of a house or any allied purpose

1. AIR 2011 SC 1123
2. AIR 2001 SC 3215

Stale charges

JT 2005 (7) SC 417 - PV Mahadevan

JT 1998 (3) 123 - State of AP v. N. Radhakrishnan

JT 1990 (2) SC 54 - State of MP v. Bani Singh

DRT ousts and overrides the jurisdiction of the company court

Allahabad Bank v. Canara Bank, Supreme Court

Consequential Order alone is challenged - writ not maintainable

1.      In Paritosh Singh & Ors v. State of UP & Ors, reported in 2011 (29) LCD 610, this Hon'ble Court has been pleased to hold that

 

"35. .. In the present case, the consequential order alone has been challenged and the original decision of the State Government dated 27.8.2007 has not been challenged. In the case of Government of Maharashtra v. Deokar's Distillery reported in (2003) 5 SCC 669 the Hon'ble Supreme Court  has held that when Writ Petition are filed challenging only consequential orders without challenging the original orders by which the cause of action arose, such Writ Petition deserve to be dismissed as not maintainable."

 

2.      The above stated principle has also been reiterated by this Hon'ble Court in  Writ A No. 51649 of 2011 (C/M Seth Basudeo Sahai Inter College, Kannauj v. State of UP) wherein it has been held by an order dated 14.9.2011 that:

 

"In  Maharastra v. Deokar's Distillery, reported in (2003) SCC 669, Barkat Ali v. Badri Narain, reported in AIR 2008 SC 1272 and P. Chithranja Menon v. A.Balakrishnan, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1720 has held that if the basic order is not under challenge, consequential order cannot be subjected to challenge.""

Court Interference in Transfer

1.      In Mohd Masood Ahmad v. State of UP & Ors, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that since the petitioner was on a transferable post, the High Court has rightly dismissed his Writ Petition because transfer is an exigency of service and is an administrative decision and further that interference by the courts with transfer orders should only be in very rare cases. Further, in Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras v.  P. Perachi, (2011) 12 SCC 137 and in Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, (1991) Suppl (2) SCC 659 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that order of transfer cannot be made to subject of judicial review.

 

2.      State of U.P. v. Gobardhan Lal, III (2004) SLT 210=(2004) 11 SCC 402 followed in

"A Government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can he insist that he must be posted at one place or the other. He is liable to be transferred in the administrative exigencies from one place to the other. Transfer of an employee is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as an essential condition of service in the absence of any specific indication to the contrary. No Government can function if the Government servant insists that once appointed or posted in a particular place or position, he should continue in such place or position as long as he desires"

 

Until rules are formulates guidelines to be adhered to fetch best price

Kerala Financial Corpn. v. Vincent Paul, (2011) 4 SCC 171

Public Law Remedy is not available for disputed questions of fact

 

The public law remedy should not be readily extended to settlement of private disputes between individuals. Even where such an order is sought against a public body the Writ Court may refuse to interfere, if in the process of determination disputed questions of fact or title would require to be adjudicated.

 CIVIL APPEAL No . 6383 o f 2012  dated 10th September, 2012 (Supreme Court) in M/s Real Estate Agencies v. Govt of Goa