<?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>1968 (11) TMI 96 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168233</link>
    <description>The SC stated that a statutory power to reserve or alter reserved areas must be exercised personally by the authority on whom it is conferred, and cannot be abdicated to the Chief Minister or another executive authority. An order made in the name of the statutory authority but actually dictated by an unauthorised authority is invalid. The Court also treated the modification of a reserved area, which affected rival claims and civil interests, as quasi-judicial in nature. Because the affected party was not given disclosure of the rival proposal and a fair chance to respond, the procedure breached natural justice and the impugned action was vitiated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2015 11:07:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375381" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (11) TMI 96 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168233</link>
      <description>The SC stated that a statutory power to reserve or alter reserved areas must be exercised personally by the authority on whom it is conferred, and cannot be abdicated to the Chief Minister or another executive authority. An order made in the name of the statutory authority but actually dictated by an unauthorised authority is invalid. The Court also treated the modification of a reserved area, which affected rival claims and civil interests, as quasi-judicial in nature. Because the affected party was not given disclosure of the rival proposal and a fair chance to respond, the procedure breached natural justice and the impugned action was vitiated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>