Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant could claim parity and seek permission for change of user on the ground that similar benefits were granted to others, despite the alleged illegality or irregularity in those other cases.
Analysis: The notice and subsequent orders were founded on unauthorized construction and deviation from the sanctioned use of the plot, contrary to the brochure conditions, lease deed stipulations, and the authority's directions. The plea of discrimination failed because Article 14 embodies positive equality and does not permit repetition of an illegal or unauthorized act. An order or benefit granted contrary to law in another case cannot be treated as a legal foundation to compel the authority to extend the same illegality to the present appellant. The power under Article 226 cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or to direct the authority to act contrary to the governing terms and law.
Conclusion: The claim of discrimination was rejected and the appellant was not entitled to parity with others on the basis of any alleged wrong or irregular benefit extended in other cases.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 14 does not permit negative equality, and a party cannot demand repetition of an illegality on the ground that similar illegality was committed in favour of others.