<?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>2012 (1) TMI 192 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174487</link>
    <description>Deletion of consultation with the High Court and District Judge in appointments of public prosecutors and district government counsel was held to remove a structural safeguard for prosecutorial independence, confer unfettered executive discretion, and conflict with the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including Section 25-A; the State amendment was therefore declared unconstitutional, ultra vires and void to that extent under Article 14. The refusal to renew and removal of the Additional District Government Counsel were also found unsustainable because the prescribed consultative procedure under the Legal Remembrancer Manual was not properly followed, so the impugned orders were quashed and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2018 12:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400688" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 192 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174487</link>
      <description>Deletion of consultation with the High Court and District Judge in appointments of public prosecutors and district government counsel was held to remove a structural safeguard for prosecutorial independence, confer unfettered executive discretion, and conflict with the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including Section 25-A; the State amendment was therefore declared unconstitutional, ultra vires and void to that extent under Article 14. The refusal to renew and removal of the Additional District Government Counsel were also found unsustainable because the prescribed consultative procedure under the Legal Remembrancer Manual was not properly followed, so the impugned orders were quashed and the matter was directed to be reconsidered afresh in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>