https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183198 Article 14 does not permit negative equality, and a party cannot compel the authority to repeat an illegality merely because similar irregular or unauthorized benefits were granted to others. The claim for parity failed where the underlying dispute involved unauthorized construction and deviation from sanctioned user conditions under the brochure, lease deed, and authority directions. The Court held that Article 226 cannot be used to perpetuate an illegality or require action contrary to governing law and contractual terms. The discrimination plea was therefore rejected, and no entitlement to parity was recognized. en-us Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jun 2016 14:29:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183198 Article 14 does not permit negative equality, and a party cannot compel the authority to repeat an illegality merely because similar irregular or unauthorized benefits were granted to others. The claim for parity failed where the underlying dispute involved unauthorized construction and deviation from sanctioned user conditions under the brochure, lease deed, and authority directions. The Court held that Article 226 cannot be used to perpetuate an illegality or require action contrary to governing law and contractual terms. The discrimination plea was therefore rejected, and no entitlement to parity was recognized. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183198