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 appellant was required to be relegated to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration of grant, and whether the grant charges were payable under the pre-amendment rules or the amended rules.
Analysis: The appellant already had a grant order which stood affirmed in appeal before the statutory tribunal, leaving only the question of payment for the subject grant. In that setting, directing the appellant to seek a fresh grant before the Assistant Commissioner was held to be unjustified. On the question of the amendment, the record did not support the view that the relevant change operated by substitution in the manner suggested from the publication relied upon by the State. The Court also held that an erroneous law report or publication cannot control the legal position to the detriment of citizens.
Conclusion: The direction relegating the appellant to the Assistant Commissioner was set aside, a writ of mandamus was issued to formalize the grant, and the appellant was held liable to pay charges under the pre-amendment rules.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a grant order has already been affirmed by the statutory tribunal and only payment formalities remain, the authority cannot insist on a fresh grant process, and the applicable charges are to be determined by the governing legal regime correctly in force.