TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Provincial Government's power to revoke a licence under Section 4(1)(a) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 depended on an objective default capable of judicial examination or on the Government's own opinion, and whether the conditions imposed under Section 4(2) were validly founded so as to sustain the subsequent revocation.
Analysis: The majority held that the words "if in its opinion" governed the whole of Section 4(1)(a), so that the existence of public interest, the existence of default, and the character of that default as wilful and unreasonably prolonged were matters for the Provincial Government's opinion. The section was treated as conferring executive discretion, and the Court could not go behind that opinion to reassess the grounds on which it was formed, save in cases of mala fides or collateral purpose. The majority also held that the notice of 3 April 1943 sufficiently disclosed the basis on which the Government acted, and that the challenge based on natural justice could not be entertained on the pleadings as framed. One judge dissented and held that the existence of the default and the legal basis of the notice were open to judicial scrutiny.
Conclusion: The impugned action under Section 4 was upheld by the majority, and the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute entrusts revocation power to the Government on the basis of its opinion that public interest requires action and that the licensee has made wilful and unreasonably prolonged default, the formation of that opinion is not open to reappraisal by the Court as an ordinary question of fact.
TaxTMI 
