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

1961 Supreme(MP) 103

P.V.DIXIT, K.L.PANDEY
S. C. BARAT – Appellant
Versus
HARI VINAYAK PATASKAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.H.SAFI, A.P.SEN, H.L.KHASKALAM, K.A.Chitale, K.B.SINHA, R.P.SINHA, R.S.DABIR, V.S.DABIR, Y.S.DHARMADHIKARI

DIXIT, C. J.

( 1 ) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing by a suitable writ an order made by the respondent No. 1, the Chancellor of the jabalpur University, appointing the respondent No. 4, Shri Avadh Bihari Mishra, as vice-Chancellor, and for the issue of suitable directions to the Chancellor for the appointment of Vice-Chancellar of the University in accordance with law. Shri chitale, learned counsel appearing for the Chancellor, has raised the preliminary objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding whatever or issue any direction under Article 226 whatever, against the Chancellor. The objection rests on Article 361 and has been raised as the Governor of the State is the Chancellor of the University.

( 2 ) BEFORE stating the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties and examining their tenability, it is necessary to refer briefly to the facts and circumstances in which this petition has been filed. Under Section 9 of the jabal-pur University Act, 1956, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh is the Chancellor. The Chancellor, by virtue of his office is the Head of the University and President of the Cour

















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