REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

STATE OF BIHAR Appellant

V/S

Vishnu Sugar Mills Limited Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

R. V/S. HANLEY REVISING BARRISTER [REFERRED TO]
RATILAL BHOGILAL V/S. GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
JAMES EDWARDS JEFFS V/S. NEW ZEALAND DAIRY PRODUCTION AND MARKETING BOARD [REFERRED TO]
PADFIELD V/S. MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE,FISHERIES AND FOOD [REFERRED TO]
R. V/S. WOODBURY LICENCING JJ. EX P. ROUSE [REFERRED TO]
RESTAURANT INC. V/S. MONTREAL [REFERRED TO]
RASHBIHARI V/S. ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
GHAIO MAL AND SONS VS. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
AKSHAJBAR LAL RAMDEO MISRA GOPAL TRIPATHI SHRI GANESH PRASAD SINGH SHRI RADHEY SHYAM SHARMA RAM YASH ROY SHRI RAM VYAS PANDEY GAURI SHANKAR TIWARI VS. VICE CHANCELLOR BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY:VICE CHANCELLOR BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY:VICE CHANCELLOR BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY:VICE CHANCELLOR BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY:VICE CHANCELLOR BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY [REFERRED TO]
S C JAISINGHANI C K TIKKU MOHAN CHANDRA JOSHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
PURTABPORE CO LIMITED VS. CANE COMMISSIONER OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
KHUDIRAM DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
SIEMENS ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING CO OF INDIA LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER GOVERNMENT BRANCH PRESS VS. D B BELLIAPPA [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA SINGH VS. CHHOTEY SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT THAKUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. D T C MAZDOOR CONGRESS ANB [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. MOHAMMAD ISMAIL [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SAGAR TIWARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
CLARIANT INTERNATIONAL LIMITED VS. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD [REFERRED TO]
MELA AKORHI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Bihar has preferred these four appeals under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, and are, aggrieved by a common judgment dated 28.2.2005, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, whereby the following writ petitions have been disposed of with certain directions to the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, Patna:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants raises a grievance that the directions amount to interference with the discretion vested in the Cane Commissioner and impermissible in law. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohd. Ismail, 1991 AIR(SC) 1099 (Para 11). He also submits that the learned writ court has erred in issuing the direction that allocation of traditional cane-growing areas would be for five years, and non-traditional areas would be for three years.

(3.) Learned counsel for the writ petitioners (respondents herein) has supported the impugned order.

Click here to view full judgment.

STATE OF BIHAR Vs. VISHNU SUGAR MILLS LIMITED

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address