CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtFull Bench(1987) 05 SC CK 0025

P. Sambamurthy and others (II) vs Union of India and others

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 5 May 1987 · Citation: (1987) 2 JT 627 : (1987) 1 SCALE 1305 : (1987) SCC 706 Supp : (1987) 1 SCC 706 Supp

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Khalid, J · Ranganath Misra, J · R. S. Pathak, J · M. M. Dutt, J · G. L. Oza, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Review Petition No''s. 417-454, 455, 477-78 and 484 of 1987. Writ Petition No''s. 90 and 112 of 1977, 3993, 4144 and 4302 of 1978, 815 of 1979, 970, 2432, 3823-25 and 7234 of 1982, 63 and 1218 of 1983, 873-82, 13407, 13430-46 etc. of 1985; 579, 874, 970 e

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 264 words
1.

We direct that the operation of the Judgment and Order dated December 20, 1986 pronounced by this Court shall extend to those cases only which were made the subject of consideration by this Court by virtue of these petitions and appeal having been filed in this Court.

2.

We direct further that in those cases where the petitions were filed directly and without having been processed judicially and decided by the consideration in accordance with the observations of this Court in the Judgment of December 20, 1986.

3.

This direction will also cover those Writ petitions which were transferred from the high court to this Court.they shall considered similarly.

4.

In all those cases where Writ Petitions were filed against the Orders of the State Government modifying or superseding the Orders of the Administrative Tribunal, we direct that those cases shall be treated as concluded by the relative orders of the Administrative Tribunal as they stood before the orders were interfered with by the State Government.

5.

We may add that Mr. L.N. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India in all these cases, sought the permission of the Court to urge a proud in respect of the interpretation of Article 371D of the Constitution. He contended that the power of Judicial review, even construed as a basic feature of the Constitution was not precluded by the provisions of Article 371D of the Constitution, and therefore the Judgment of this Court called for review. We are not satisfied, however, that we should interfere.

6.

The Review Petitions are disposed of accordingly.