Just a moment...
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 respondents were justified in refusing to implement the competent authority's order permitting the petitioner to shift the A-4 shop to Ward No.14, and whether the subordinate authority could reject the request contrary to that order.
Analysis: The petitioner had obtained a licence for the A-4 shop and sought shifting because the originally notified location became unusable due to public agitation. The competent authority, having jurisdiction under the excise framework, had issued proceedings permitting shifting to Ward No.14 or other specified wards. The subordinate authority, despite lacking jurisdiction to override that decision, rejected the request on the basis that Ward No.14 was a prohibited area. The record also showed inconsistency in the stand taken by the authority, including prior proceedings indicating that Ward No.14 was not a prohibited ward. In these circumstances, the refusal to carry out the competent authority's order was held to be unjustified.
Conclusion: The respondents were not justified in declining to implement the permission for shifting, and the subordinate authority's contrary order could not stand. The petitioner was entitled to shift the A-4 shop to Ward No.14.