TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a writ of mandamus could be granted in the absence of a prior demand for justice and refusal; (ii) Whether Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2018 was ultra vires or unconstitutional.
Issue (i): Whether a writ of mandamus could be granted in the absence of a prior demand for justice and refusal.
Analysis: A writ of mandamus is not issued as of right unless the petitioner establishes a legal right, a corresponding legal duty, and, as a general rule, a prior demand for performance and refusal. The pleading here did not satisfy that settled requirement, and no exception to the rule was shown.
Conclusion: The request for mandamus was not maintainable and was rejected.
Issue (ii): Whether Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2018 was ultra vires or unconstitutional.
Analysis: Rule 35 required establishment name boards to be in Marathi in Devanagari script, while permitting additional languages and scripts. The Rule was upheld as a valid measure framed under the parent Act to serve a public purpose connected with the convenience of workers and the public, and the Court found a rational nexus with the statutory object. The Court rejected the challenge based on Articles 14, 19 and 29, holding that the Rule did not prohibit other languages, did not amount to impermissible compulsion, and imposed a reasonable condition applicable uniformly in Maharashtra.
Conclusion: Rule 35 was held to be valid and constitutional.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in its entirety, and the Court declined to interfere with the impugned rule while also awarding costs against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ of mandamus ordinarily requires a prior demand and refusal, and a regulatory rule imposing a uniform, non-exclusive requirement on establishment signage will be sustained where it bears a rational nexus to the statutory object and does not prohibit the use of other languages or scripts.
TaxTMI 
