TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SC Dismisses Appeal on Uttar Pradesh District Creation; State to Retain New Districts Despite HC Quashing Notification.</h1> <h3>State of U.P. and Ors. Versus Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh and Ors.</h3> State of U.P. and Ors. Versus Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh and Ors. - TMI Issues involved: Challenge to order creating a new district Baghpat in Uttar Pradesh.Summary:1. The appeal challenged an order by the Allahabad High Court regarding the creation of Baghpat district in Uttar Pradesh.2. The High Court disposed of the writ petition based on a previous order in a different case.3. A notification was issued for creating Baghpat district under relevant sections of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and the General Clauses Act. Writ petitions were filed challenging the creation of Baghpat and another district, Sant Kabir Nagar. The High Court quashed the notification for Sant Kabir Nagar and directed reconsideration. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition related to Sant Kabir Nagar.4. Another writ petition challenged the creation of Kausambi district, which was disposed of with reference to the Sant Kabir Nagar case.5. The State assured compliance with the High Court's orders regarding district creation and budget provisions.6. The Division Bench noted unnecessary observations made by the High Court regarding district officials' residence. The State Cabinet decided to continue the new districts created in 1997.7. A contempt petition related to the district creation was disposed of after the State Cabinet's decision to retain the new districts.8. The appellant argued against the High Court's interference in policy decisions like district creation. The respondents supported the High Court's consideration of various factors.9. The High Court's direction for reconsideration in a previous case was deemed unnecessary as the Cabinet had already made a decision.10. The Court emphasized limited interference in policy decisions by the judiciary, leaving such matters to the government's discretion.11. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
