Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)139PLR238
..... has been recognized and accepted as the representative of 'public interest'. his status in this regard has been duly explained by the apex court in the case of adi pherozshah gandhi v. h.m. seeravi, advocate general of maharashtra, bombay, a.i.r. 1971 s.c. 385. certainly being the conscious keeper of the 'public interest', it is the prerogative of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2003)133PLR579
..... regard can be placed on a judgment of this court in case of om parkash v. shiv dutt sharma, 1991(1) r.c.r. 395: sarjit singh v. gian singh gandhi, (1990-2)98 p.l.r. 355 and d hem raj v. ramesh kamar khosla, (1994-3)108 p.l.r. 108. 23. the view of the rent controller that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1999P& H43; (1998)120PLR454
..... the teacher; -education is god incarnate; education secures honour at the hands of the state, not money, a man without education is equal to animal.' 2. father of the nation mahatma gandhi and the great philosophers, thinkers and educationists like our presidents late dr. s. radhakrishnan and late dr. zakir husssain gave clarion call for educating indian masses. this is also one .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1998P& H283; (1998)119PLR757
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. The all important question that arises for adjudication in this petition filed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter described as HUDA) for quashing the orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandigarh (for short, the District Forum) and the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (for short, the State Commission) is whether the District Forum could direct the allotment of a residential plot to respondent No. 1 even though draw of lots was not held by the competent authority due to non-availability of land and pending litigation.2. The facts necessary for deciding the above question are that in pursuance of advertisements issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA in 1984, 1280 persons including respondent No. 1 submitted applications for allotment of 10-marla plots in Sector 23, Urban Estate, Faridabad. However, draw of lots could not be held due to pending of two-prolonged litigation, one between...
Tag this Judgment!