SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 536

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
B. Shankaranand – Appellant
Versus
Common Cause – Respondent


ORDER

We have heard learned counsel on all sides even at the admission stage.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order made on 29.2.1996 in Writ Petition No. 2453/95 by the third learned Judge of the High Court of Delhi whom matter was referred pursuant to the difference of opinion expressed by a Division Bench of the High Court in the orders dated December 6, 1995. The learned Judge agreed with one of the two learned Judges and held that the appellant, nominated under Section 4(e) of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Act (25 of 1956) (for short, the Act ), not being a scientist - either medical or non-medical - representing the Indian Science Congress Association, is not a person within the meaning of that section; he thus being not entitled to be nominated, his nomination is bad in law. The question that arises is : whether in the composition of member indicated in Section 4 of the Act comprising different interests (of which category of five persons enumerated in clause (e) thereof), all the five persons should be scientists, either medical or non-medical, representing the Indian Science Congress Association or only one among them shou
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top