Section C – 2022

1. The government of Arunachal Pradesh issued a Price Control order 2021 fixing the
price of edible oil at Rs. 60/- per liter under section 3 of the essential commodities
act, 1995. The association of oil traders of Arunachal Pradesh challenged the said
order stating that they were not accorded the right to be heard. Decide with the help
of case law.
Concept - DL, PNJ- Audi Altra partem, Legitimate expectation.
Issues:-
Whether the particular authority has proper delegation for issuing these orders?
Is it excessive delegation??
Taking the decision provided by the arbitrator is valid until without giving Audi Altra partem i.e
PNJ?
Relevant case law:-
1. In re Delhi cases - provided guidelines for DL
2. Hindustan development corporation case
3. Kishan lal Arora vs state of Haryana
4. ✓ Hari Shankar Bagla vs State of Madhya Pradesh
5. Narendra Kumar vs Union of India
6. ✓ Nalgonda district oil Millers vs government of India
7. Parag Ice and oil Mills and Anr. etc vs Union of India
2. Arun, an employee of a public sector undertaking was dismissed from service without
being served a show cause notice. Arun wants to challenge the dismissal order. Provide him
(Arun)legal advice.
PNJ, 309-314 Art. Major 309,310,311 articles
Case:- Arun Naganath Sontakke vs State of Maharashtra
3. A selection committee chaired by the principal of a government college appointed the
principal’s daughter as a teacher on regular basis in the college. An aspirant wants to
challenge the selection process. Provided him legal assistance.
personal bias , PNJ explain 3kinds
Case:- A. K Kraipak vs Union of India
4. An employee faced an inquiry for dereliction of duty. The inquiry committee did not allow
the employee the right to counsel. Explain whether right to be counsel is an indispensable
apart of right to be heard.
PNJ
Case:- D. K. Yadav vs J. M. A Industries
Section C – 2022
1. Nitish was found dead in the Narula police station in the state of Rajor. Nitish’s wife
wants to claim compensation from the government of Rajor. Provide her legal
assistance.
Case:- Nilabati Behra vs State of Orissa
2. The government of Madhya Pradesh took over the management of a spinning mill
form a private company declaring it to be a sick industry under the MP industries
(Control and Regulation) Act, 1956. The private company challenged this
governmental action contending that the company was denied right to be heard.
Argue on behalf of the company.
Case:- Swadeshi cotton Mills vs Union of India
3. An inquiry committee was constituted against Anand, a bank manager for sexual
misconduct against a female employee. The inquiry committee was chaired by the
 first cousin of Anand. The female employee wants to see legal redressal. Provide her
legal assistance.
Case:- Cottle vs Cottle ( not a apt answer)
On behalf of workman it was vs state of Maharashtra
4. The government issued an advertisement for the selection of armed personnel. Only
males were qualified to apply for the said positions. Sagari, a female aspirant for the
position wants to contest the said advertisement. Provide her legal assistance
Case:- ✓ Kush Kalra vs Union of India
The secretary ministry of defence vs Babita Puniya and others.
Section C 2021
1. Government enters into a contract with ‘X’ for the supply of milk to one of its hospitals
for one year. Based upon this, ‘X’ purchased machinery to store the milk and incurred
huge expenditure. After three months, for no fault of ‘X,’ the government wanted to
revoke the contract. ‘X’ pleaded estoppel against the government and filed a suit for
damages. Is Government liable?
Case:- not a apt answer:-
Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria vs Union of India
2.Passport authority of India impounded the passport of ‘A’ in order to prevent ‘A’
from leaving India. ‘A’ was facing some criminal charges. While impounding the
passport of ‘A,’ no reasons were given. Is the action of passport authority valid?
case:- Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India
Satwant Singh vs assistant passport officer, New Delhi
3. The validity of Section 28 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act,1985, which
excluded in judicial review of High Courts over tribunals is challenged before
Supreme Court on the ground that it is violating the basic feature of the constitution.
Discuss and decide.
case:- L. Sampath Kumar vs Union of India
L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India
Section C 2021
1. Government notification had provided that any private practice by a government
doctor will be taken as “Corruption” punishable under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. Decide the validity of notification.
Case:- Kanwarjit Singh vs State of Punjab and others
2. After doing business for 30 years suddenly the Company had to be closed down
because of fall in production. As a result, 1200 person became unemployed. On the
basis of the enquiry report the government passed an order to take over the mill for a
period of five years. The order was challenged on the ground that enquiry report was
not ffurnished.
Case:- Keshav Mills co Ltd vs Union of India
3. A senior officer expressed appreciation of the work of a junior officer in his
confidential report. He was also a member of the Departmental promotion committee.
The committee recommended this junior officer for promotion. This was challenged
on the ground of personal bias. Decide the validity of promotion.
Case:- G. N. Nayak vs Goa University
4. A Military truck carrying meals for military personnel on duty in the forward area. A
person is run over by a military truck due to the negligence of the driver. Decide the
liability of the government.
Case:- Harbans Singh vs Union of India
Section C 2021
1. ‘X’ a employee of a co-operative bank is dismissed from service on the ground of
criminal breach of trust and also subjected to prosecution. ‘X’ requested for a copy of
a statement of accounts to disprove the charge, but was denied. Decide.
Case:- State Bank of patiala vs S. K. Sharma
2. A student wrote his register number on every page of the answer book in a coded
examination. The university cancelled his examinations without giving his notice. Is it
a valid displinary action?
Case:- Karnataka PSC vs B. M. Vaidya Shankar ✓
Jawaharlal Nehru University vs B. S. Narwal
3. A complaint was given by some girl students of a engineering college, some boy
students of their college entered and misbehaved in the ladies hostels, than girl
students gave a complaint against that boy students to the college management.
Management enquiry committee recorded the statements of the girls of the hostel in
the absence of boy students and expelled the boys from the college. Boys
approached the court for Justice. Advise boy students.
Board of High school vs Kumari Chitra Srivastava
4. The Government had the power of granting exemption in tax to newly made and
expanded factories of sugar up to 3 years in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The
Government makes a policy to grant exemption to newly made factories in
cooperative sector, for 1 year. The other sugar factories. The other sugar factories in
the State challenged that government should consider every application and cannot
lay down a policy to exemption only co-operative sectors. Decide.
Hira Nath Mishra vs The Principal, Rajendra Medical College
Section C – 2020
1. “X” a public trust was running a college at Visakhapatnam affiliated to Andhra
University. The teachers were given the pay scale recommended by the University
Grants Commission. The chancellor directed all affiliated colleges to implement the
revised pay scales. X instead of revising the pay scales closed the college and
terminated the services of teachers. The teachers made a representation to “X” for
grant of terminal benefits which they were entitle to as per law. “X” refused to pay.
The teachers filed a writ petition in High Court. “X” contended that High Court cannot
issue a writ as it is not a statutory body. Decide with the help of judicial decisions.

2. .“X” a member of a Departmental Promotion Committee and himself being a

candidate for the post participated in the deliberation for selection of all candidates
including “Y”. He withdrew himself when his name was considered by the committee.
“X” name was at the top of the list of selected candidates. “Y” who was not selected
for the post challenged the elections. Decide with the help of decided ccases.
A.K. Kraipak vs Union of India
3. .“X” a company secretary in a governmental company was dismissed from the
service after conducting an enquiry. The company was represented by its personal
manager, who was a legally qualified person. X was not allowed to take the services
of lawyer on the ground that he is senior executive and can defend himself.” X”
challenged the proceedings. Decide.
FCI( food corporation of India) vs Bant Singh and another
4. The government had the power of granting exemption in tax to newly made and
expanded factories of sugar up to 3 years in the state of A.P. The government makes
 a policy to grant exemption to newly made factories in cooperative sector for one
year. The other sugar factories in the state challenged that government should
consider every application and cannot lay down a policy to exempt only cooperative
sectors. Decide with relevant case laws.
Motilal Padampat Mills vs State of UP
Shri Ram Sugar Mills vs State of AP
Section C – 2019
1. Where the services of sales woman were terminated on the ground that she was
unsexy and the top executive of the company wanted someone hot. Woman
challenged the dismissal order on the ground of Gender discrimination. Advice.
Air India vs Nargesh Mirza
2. A senior supervisor was dismissed from service by the company for committing theft.
The dispute was referred to the labour court Dhanbad under the industrial disputes
act, 1947. The workman made an application to the labour court stating that since he
was residing at Patna, it would be convenient for him, if the case would be
transferred labout court Patna. The Government without issuing notice to the
management transferred the case. The petition filed by the management against the
said order. ‘advice’.
M. S. Nally Bharat Engg co Ltd vs State of Bihar
3. The government of ‘X’ had constituted a committee for selection of books for its
libraries. Some of the members in the committee were authors of the books. Their
books were approved by the committee. ‘Z’ a reader of the library wants to challenge
the process of book selection. Advice.
Manjula Manjari vs Director of Public Instruction
J. Mohapatra vs State of Orissa
4. A notification enhancing higher rate of duty on cigarettes was published on 30th
November 1982 in the official gazette. The notification was placed for sale to public
on December 8th 1982. It was contented that on behalf of the assessee that
enhanced rate could only believable from 8th December when the notification was
made available for sale. The department on the other hand submitted that once the
notification was published in the official Gazette, it comes into operation and no
further action was necessary. Advice.
CCE vs New Tobacco company ✓
Chintaman Rao vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Section C – 2018
1. Government enters into a contract with ‘X’ for the supply of milk to one of its hospitals
for one year. Based upon this, ‘X’ purchased machinery to store the milk and insured
huge expenditure. After three months, for no fault of ‘X,’ the government wanted to
revoke the contract. ‘X’ pleaded estoppel against the government and filed a suit for
damages. Discuss the government’s liability.
Not an apt answer - Seth Bikhraj vs Union of India
2. ‘X,’ a police officer, was alleged to have misbehaved with a woman corporator during
election campaign. The enquiry report suggested that though he was duty bound and
well behaved, the allegation brought bad name to the police department. On these
observations, he was dismissed from services. Defend the police officer.
Ridge vs Baldwin
K. P. S. Gill vs Rupan Deol Bajaj
 3. Passport authority of India impounded the passport of ‘A’ in order to prevent ‘A’ from
leaving India. ‘A’ was facing some criminal charges. While impounding the passport
of ‘A,’ no reasons were given. Discuss the validity of the action of passport authority.
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India
Satwant Singh vs assistant passport officer, New Delhi
4. The employees of a public undertaking challenged the validity of the decision of
Union of India to privatise it on the ground that it would affect their interests. Decide
the validity of the decision of Union of India to privatise a profit making public
undertaking.
Balco Employees Union vs Union of India

Section C – 2017
1. An Act passed by a State Legislature to regulate relations between landlord and
tenant contains a provision that the decision of the MRO shall be final and shall not
be questioned in any court of law. Party aggrieved by the decision of MRO wants to
seek legal redress. Advise.

2. A departmental enquiry was held against ‘A’ by ‘B.’ As one of the witnesses against
‘A’ turned hostile, ‘B’ left the enquiry and gave evidence against ‘A’ and resumed
enquiry and passed an order for dismissal. ‘A’ wants to challenge the enquiry.
Decide.
Mohammad. Nooh vs State of UP
3. ‘Ram’ was arrested by the police under National Security Act and was detained in
jail. Ram was not given the grounds of his arrest. Advise Ram?
Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar
4. ‘A,’ a driver for a government duty took the vehicle to bring stationery to the office.
When it was parked and
the driver went into a shop, the cleaner of the vehicle drove it and hit a pedestrian. The
government claimed sovereign immunity and the injured person claimed damages. Discuss.
Vidyawati vs State of Rajasthan
Lokumal vs Vidyawati
Premwati vs State of Rajasthan
Rooplal vs Union of India
Bakshi Amrik Singh vs Union of India
N. Nagendra vs State of AP

Section C – 2016
1. The State excise Act empowered the State government to fix the rates of excise duty. It
also empowered the government to make rules. Both the provisions were challenged on the
ground of the excessive delegation of legislative power. Decide.
N. K. Papaih vs excise commission
2. X passport was impounded by the passport authority that he was going to involved in
anti-social activities without assigning any reasons. Advise ‘X’.
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India
Satwant Singh vs assistant passport officer, New Delhi
3. ‘A’ was arrested by a police officer and kept in police station for one week. ‘A’ was not
given any reason later ‘A’ was released ‘A’ questioned the authority of police to do so –
decide.
Bhim Singh vs State of Jammu and Kashmir
Rudal Shah vs State of Bihar
Joginder Kumar vs State of UP
4. The validity of ‘Central Administrative Tribunals Act’ which excluded in judicial review of
high courts over tribunals is challenged before Supreme Court on the ground that it is
violating the basic feature of the constitution. Discuss and decide.
Sampath Kumar vs Union of India
L. Chandra Kumar vs Union of India

Section C – 2015
1. There was a dispute between contractors of an engineering department of Govt. of India.
The dispute refers to an arbitrator as per the terms of agreement arbitrator favoured the
govt. the contractor refused to be bound by the award of the arbitration. Examine.
Raipur Development authority vs chokhamal contractors
Siemens Engineering and manufacturing company of India Ltd vs Union of India
2. ‘X’ a police constable was alleged to have misbehaved with a woman corporator during
election campaign. The enquiry report suggested that though he was duty bounded and well
behaved. The allegation brought bad name to the police department. On these observations
he was dismissed from the service. Defend the constable in the court of law.

3. ‘A’ obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (GHMC) to start
leather industry near Begumpet Airport. The residents of Begumpet and surrounding places
wants to challenge the order of permission- Advise.
M.C. Mehta vs Union of India
( Calcutta Tanneries)
Vellore Citizens welfare forum vs Union of India
AP pollution control board vs M.V Nayudu( Naidu)
MC Mehta vs Union of India
( Kanpur Tanneries)
4. A cleaner of a jeep working in a State Government undertaking, started the jeep and drive
negligently and dashed a pedestrian caused him serious injuries. Examine the liability of
state.

Section C – 2014
1. A cleaner of a jeep working in a State Government undertaking, started the jeep and drive
negligently and dashed a pedestrian caused him serious injuries. Examine the liability of
state.
2. X passport was impounded by the passport authority that he was going to involved in
anti-social activities without assigning any reasons. Advise ‘X’.
3. ‘A’ obtained permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (GHMC) to start
leather industry near Begumpet Airport. The residents of Begumpet and surrounding places
wants to challenge the order of permission- Advise.
4. There was a dispute between contractor of engineering department of Govt. of India. The
dispute refers to an arbitrator as per the terms of agreement. Arbitrator favoured the
government. The contractor refused to be bound by the award of the arbitration. Examine.
Section C – 2013
1. ‘K’ university has challenged the degree examination paper English – I in one of its
centres on the ground of mass copying. The candidate ‘Y’ who is effected wants to challenge
in the court of law- advise.
Subash Chandra vs Bihar School examination board
2. A social activist obtained under right to information Act. Material which suggested the
information as to misappropriation of government funds by a government officer by name ‘X’.
A wants to take up criminal and other proceedings against ‘X’ on the basis of information he
has obtained from the competent authority. Advise ‘A’.
Subash Chandra Agarwal vs INC and others
3. Property is transferred to ‘X’ that a bachelor for life and afterwards to all children of ‘X’
when the last child attains majority. Is that transfer valid.

4. ‘X’ a police constable was alleged to have misbehave with a women corporate during
election complain. The enquiry report suggested the thought he was duty bound and well
behaved. The allegation brought bad name to the police department. On these observations
he was dismissed from service. Defend the constable the court of law?

Section C – 2011
1. A was summarily dismissed from service by the State government on allegations of
serious acts of sexual harassment of women colleagues both in office and outside. A
challenges his dismissal on the ground that he was not given sufficient opportunity to explain
his case. Decide.
Air India vs Nargesh Mirza
Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan
Apparel export promotion council vs A. K. Chopra
On behalf of workmen it was vs State of Maharashtra
2. The Collector’s jeep driver while bringing back the jeep from garage to collector’s office,
was involved in an accident and died. The widow filed a suit claiming damages, the State
opposed the suit and claimed sovereign immunity. Decide.
3. A, a social activist obtained under right to information Act material which suggested the
information as to misappropriation of government funds by a government officer by name X.
A wants to take up criminal and other proceedings against X on the basis of information he
has obtained from the competent authority. Advice A.
4. The State government has withdrawn hundreds of criminal cases filed against its party
cadre when the party was in opposition. The cases include cases for attempt to murder,
destruction of public and private property etc. A victim of destruction of property challenged
in the High Court the withdrawal of cases. Decide.
Anwar Ali vs State of West Bengal
( Controversial as all political parties are part and parcel of it)

Sexual Harassment cases - Clinton , the president of America vs Monica