https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128148 A consent direction expressly stated not to be a precedent could not be treated as binding authority, because only the ratio decidendi of a decided question has precedential value. A direction made without full consideration of the controlling statute, or without argument on the precise issue, cannot override the governing legal framework. The municipal scheme prohibiting encroachment on public streets and empowering removal of unauthorized stalls also barred any writ compelling rehabilitation or continuation of an unlawful occupation. The Court therefore held that mandamus could not be used to regularize an encroachment contrary to statute, and the earlier direction could not support the relief granted. en-us Mon, 12 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jun 2026 13:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128148 A consent direction expressly stated not to be a precedent could not be treated as binding authority, because only the ratio decidendi of a decided question has precedential value. A direction made without full consideration of the controlling statute, or without argument on the precise issue, cannot override the governing legal framework. The municipal scheme prohibiting encroachment on public streets and empowering removal of unauthorized stalls also barred any writ compelling rehabilitation or continuation of an unlawful occupation. The Court therefore held that mandamus could not be used to regularize an encroachment contrary to statute, and the earlier direction could not support the relief granted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 12 Sep 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=128148