Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
In today's digital age, governments increasingly rely on websites to share updates, including notifications on land acquisition, tenders, and policy changes. But what happens when a notification needs to be withdrawn? Can simply deleting or updating it on a government website make it legally effective? The question withdrawing a notification from government website arises frequently, especially in contentious areas like land acquisition. Unfortunately, the answer is no—mere online removal lacks legal force. Courts have consistently ruled that valid withdrawal requires formal publication in the or equivalent authoritative medium. This ensures transparency, public notice, and prevents clandestine actions.
This blog explores the legal principles, key judgments, and practical implications, drawing from and decisions. Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The core legal finding is clear: withdrawing a government notification, particularly in statutory contexts like land acquisition under , demands public notification through the . Internal decisions, memos, or website updates do not suffice. As held by the , A notification in the is required to be issued if the decides to withdraw from the acquisition under Section 48(1) of the Act 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1490.
This principle upholds and , ensuring no secret withdrawals undermine public purpose.
In 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1490, the scrutinized a land acquisition withdrawal. The government's internal decision and website notice were deemed insufficient without gazette publication. The Court emphasized that such notifications must follow the same formal process as the original issuance.
Similarly, another judgment reinforces: the decision to withdraw from acquisition must be published in the , and that the law requires publication in the same manner as original notifications to be valid 2013 0 Supreme(HP) 930.
This requirement extends beyond land acquisition. For instance:- In a tender withdrawal scenario, the court allowed liberty to withdraw an impugned tender notification and issue a fresh one by following the procedures established under law
. This underscores procedural adherence.- A notification withdrawing powers from state governments was formally issued by the , highlighting that even power withdrawals need proper notification, not just letters 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 470.- In under Section 48(1), the court struck down a withdrawal without hearing affected parties, violating : The Government's withdrawal of the notification without giving an opportunity to the appellants violated the principles of 2014 0 Supreme(Kar) 838. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration with hearings.- Policy withdrawals, like concessions to army personnel, were modified prospectively via notifications, affecting seniority lists only after formal issuance 2011 0 Supreme(Pat) 305.- A withdrew a notification dated via another dated , rendering a infructuous 2010 0 Supreme(Kar) 281.- In land acquisition under , a withdrawal notification was issued, but subsequent attempts to cancel it failed due to lack of provisions, showing procedural rigidity 2000 0 Supreme(AP) 337.
These cases illustrate a consistent judicial insistence on formal publication across tenders, policies, and acquisitions.
Government websites excel at quick dissemination but lack the statutory weight of the gazette. Publication on a government website alone is not sufficient, as it lacks the formal legal standing and the transparency mandated by law 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1490 2013 0 Supreme(HP) 930. Simply removing a notification online does not:- Constitute valid withdrawal.- Bind stakeholders or affect rights.- Prevent challenges from unaware parties.
Implications:- Interested parties (landowners, contractors) should verify gazette notifications, not just websites.- Governments risk litigation if relying on digital-only updates.
While gazette publication is the norm:- Specific laws may allow alternative modes if explicitly stated 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1490.- Internal decisions without publication have no legal effect on third parties.- may require hearings before withdrawal, as in denotification cases 2014 0 Supreme(Kar) 838.
Bureaucrats, as custodians of government property, must protect through transparent processes 2016 0 Supreme(Bom) 470.
To ensure validity:1. Publish in : Always use this for withdrawals in land acquisition or statutory matters.2. Verify Sources: Check gazettes for confirmations, not just websites.3. Seek Legal Review: Before acting on withdrawals, confirm procedural compliance.4. Promote Transparency: Governments should sync websites with gazette updates promptly.
In summary, while digital tools aid accessibility, the law prioritizes time-tested gazette publication for enforceability. Stay informed, verify officially, and consult professionals for specific cases. Transparency remains the cornerstone of valid governance.
#GovtNotifications, #LandAcquisitionLaw, #OfficialGazette
also be published in the affected areas and uploaded on the website of the Appropriate Government. ... Magistrate and the Tehsil and shall also be published in the affected areas in such a manner as may be prescribed and also uploaded on the website of the Appropriate Government. ... It was contended that it was also uploaded on the official website. The Affidavit-in-Reply further referred to Notification dated 17th November 2021 inviting objections. ... Venegaonkar after the #HL_START....
In view of it, the state government issued another notification dated 22.7.2002 under S.21 of the Karnataka General Clauses Act, withdrawing the notification dated 15.9.2001. ... On the other hand, the first respondent submitted that a notification withdrawing an earlier notification under S.48 (dated 22.7.2002) could not have been issued without hearing the land owners in whose favour a right in property had accrued by issue of a notification under ....
The Government has to be left free to determine the priorities in the matter of utilisation of finances and to act in the public interest while issuing or modifying or withdrawing an exemption notification under Section 25(1) of the Act. ... This First Notification was subsequently amended by the Central Government through a fresh notification dated November 11, 2003,4[Notification No 164 of 2003],(hereafter, “Amended Notification”). ... Where the #H....
The said notification dated 11.04 .2022 makes it abundantly clear that publication of the vacancy in the Official Gazette was being substituted by publication of the same on the official website of the Department. ... The applicant downloaded a copy of the said recommendation from the official website of the respondent. ... Parties shall act on a sever copy downloaded from the official website of this Court. ... Provided that in case of re-notification of any vacancy on account of non-availability of....
The Government is entitled to reconsider its previous decision withdrawing the earlier notification under S.4 and restart acquisition proceedings with respect to the same land. ... In due course on 13th November, 1969, the State Government issued the notification under S.6(1) of the Act in respect of the plots which were mentioned in the notification under S.4. ... On 27th July, 1970 however, the State Government issued a notification stating that th....
Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., nd meeting held on 11th and 12th June 2025, considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and took the impunged decision of withdrawing recognition of petitioner on the ground that petitioner made a fake corrigendum ... Provided that no such order against the recognised institution shall be passed unless a reasonable opportunity of making representation against the proposed order has been given to such recognized institution: Provided further that the order withdrawing ... The petitioner has placed rel....
(Emphasis supplied) Section 21(1) mandates the Collector to publish public notice on the website stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land and claims of compensation by ... Notice to persons interested.—(1) The Collector shall publish the public notice on his website and cause public notice to be given at convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims ... The learned Central Government Seni....
Ultimately, on 09.04.2014, petitioner sent a communication indicating that he is withdrawing his request, which he had made earlier to opt voluntary retirement. The said letter was received by the Principal Secretary to the Government on 11.04.2014. ... issuance of the notification. ... On 07.05.2014, the first impugned notification was issued, voluntarily retiring the petitioner from service with effect from the date of said notification, i.e., 07.05.2014. His application for withdrawal of voluntary re....
That in view of the aforesaid, the respondents may have to issue a fresh notification cancelling and/or withdrawing the notification dated 12.10.2011 u/s 48(1) of the Act and to issue a fresh notification to rescind and/or withdraw the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act if leave for the same is granted ... Since there was no notice issued under Section 9(1) of the Act, the question of withdrawing from the acquisition under Section 48(1) did not arise. ... Because, after the publication o....
2.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation would now submit that they are withdrawing the impugned tender notification regarding the subject packages and they seek liberty to ... issue a fresh tender notification for the subject packages by following the procedures established under law. ... For Petitioner :Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Anandkumar For R1 :Mr.D.Sasikumar Additional Government Pleader For R2 ... For Petitioner :M....
The Central Government issued 2003 Notification withdrawing powers from the State Government. The letters dated 11.03.2003 and 15.03.2003 do not constitute clearance. The clearance of MOEF was required in respect of the activities with investment exceeding Rs.5 crores excepting those activities which are to be regulated by the concerned authorities at the State/Union Territory level in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 6, sub-paragraph (2) of Annexure I of the 1991 Notification. Thus, the building in question is constructed without clearance of MOEF.
After directing the B.D.A. to withdraw the appeal filed by it an order has been passed to denotify the lands by its order dated 14.10.2009 and after issuance of notification under Section 48(1), the writ appeal filed by the B.D.A. has been withdrawn and the writ petition filed by the appellants has also been withdrawn. Therefore, the short question that arises for our consideration is: “Whether the notification issued under Section 48(1) could be withdrawn by the State Government without giving any opportunity to the appellants herein?” Then all of a sudden, the Government by its o....
3. In the meantime, the State Government issued Annexure-14 withdrawing the earlier concessions granted to army personnel vide its letter dated 2.3.2005, which was subsequently modified vide Annexure-9, dated 9.10.2007. 1509, dated 2.3.2005 by stating that the effect of the aforesaid letter would be prospective and as such those persons who had been given the benefit of counting the years of service in the army for the purpose of determining the date of joining in Government service would continue to enjoy the said benefit, and the withdrawal of the said benefit would be prospective i.e. fro....
3. This court by order dated 12.12.2006 directed the parties to maintain status quo as on that date and the said interim order was continued. This court accepting the notification, by order dated 19.8.2008 dismissed the writ petition as having become infructuous. However, the State Government filed a Memo on 19.8.2008, producing a Notification dated 16.8.2008 inter alia stating that, by said notification the State Government has withdrawn the impugned notification dated 17.11.2006 with effect from 14.8.2008.
While so, on 22-9-1983, the Government issued a notification withdrawing the land in S. No. 1/1, 1/2 from acquisition. Declaration under Section 6 was issued on 19-10-1982. The collector decided to cancel the withdrawal, but for want of provision in that behalf, such action could not be taken.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
