<?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>2008 (3) TMI 660 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170185</link>
    <description>Under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, the State Government&#039;s power to publish substantial modifications to a development plan depends on forming an opinion, on relevant material, that such modifications are necessary. That opinion must reflect application of mind and must be disclosed by the order itself; later explanations cannot cure a missing foundation. On the record, no material showed a genuine satisfaction that substantial modifications were required, and the notifications did not disclose the requisite opinion. The notifications were therefore void and ultra vires because the condition precedent for exercise of power under the proviso to Section 17(1)(a)(ii) was not satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2015 11:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (3) TMI 660 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170185</link>
      <description>Under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, the State Government&#039;s power to publish substantial modifications to a development plan depends on forming an opinion, on relevant material, that such modifications are necessary. That opinion must reflect application of mind and must be disclosed by the order itself; later explanations cannot cure a missing foundation. On the record, no material showed a genuine satisfaction that substantial modifications were required, and the notifications did not disclose the requisite opinion. The notifications were therefore void and ultra vires because the condition precedent for exercise of power under the proviso to Section 17(1)(a)(ii) was not satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170185</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>