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 a public notice could validly require an authorised courier to apply for renewal of registration one month before expiry, and whether forfeiture of security for non-compliance with that condition was sustainable when the Regulations themselves required only an application before expiry under Regulation 10(3).
Analysis: The Regulations provided that registration of an authorised courier was valid for three years and could be renewed on application made before expiry if performance was satisfactory. The public notice added a further condition requiring renewal application to be filed one month before expiry. As the notice was not authorised by the Act or the Regulations, it could not modify the statutory scheme or override the regulation. A condition introduced through a public notice, inconsistent with the Regulations, had no legal force.
Conclusion: The forfeiture based on breach of the public notice was without authority of law and could not stand. The condition in the public notice was inapplicable, and the appellants succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: An administrative public notice cannot alter or supplement a statutory regulation unless the parent Act authorises such modification, and any action founded on a notice inconsistent with the regulation is ultra vires and void.