<?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>2005 (2) TMI 824 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173492</link>
    <description>Section 20(3)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, requiring satisfaction of local educational need before permission to establish a technical institution is granted, was held not to be repugnant to Section 10 of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987. The Court found that the State law operated in a distinct field concerned with local suitability and need, while the Central law governed national coordination and maintenance of standards in technical education. As there was no direct, irreconcilable conflict, and compliance with both provisions remained possible, the State provision was constitutionally valid and the challenge to it failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 824 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173492</link>
      <description>Section 20(3)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, requiring satisfaction of local educational need before permission to establish a technical institution is granted, was held not to be repugnant to Section 10 of the All India Council of Technical Education Act, 1987. The Court found that the State law operated in a distinct field concerned with local suitability and need, while the Central law governed national coordination and maintenance of standards in technical education. As there was no direct, irreconcilable conflict, and compliance with both provisions remained possible, the State provision was constitutionally valid and the challenge to it failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>