<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (8) TMI 470 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126803</link>
    <description>A special statute governing temple administration provided a complete machinery for supervision, audit, removal of erring functionaries, supersession of the committee and related remedies, so public interest litigation should not ordinarily be used to bypass that framework. The Court emphasised judicial restraint where the legislature has created dedicated forums and procedures, particularly in matters affecting temple management and religious practices. It also noted that the High Court had gone beyond permissible review by appointing a commissioner, seizing records and conducting a roving inquiry in a manner closer to a commission of inquiry, without first allowing the statutory authorities to act. The adverse observations against the appellant were expunged, while residual issues were left for the State to decide under the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=163692" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 470 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126803</link>
      <description>A special statute governing temple administration provided a complete machinery for supervision, audit, removal of erring functionaries, supersession of the committee and related remedies, so public interest litigation should not ordinarily be used to bypass that framework. The Court emphasised judicial restraint where the legislature has created dedicated forums and procedures, particularly in matters affecting temple management and religious practices. It also noted that the High Court had gone beyond permissible review by appointing a commissioner, seizing records and conducting a roving inquiry in a manner closer to a commission of inquiry, without first allowing the statutory authorities to act. The adverse observations against the appellant were expunged, while residual issues were left for the State to decide under the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126803</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>