<?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>1985 (9) TMI 348 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184139</link>
    <description>A fresh constitution of a Regional Transport Authority by later Gazette notification displaced the earlier authority immediately, so proceedings taken by the superseded body were void for lack of jurisdiction. The de facto doctrine did not cure the defect because it applies to defective incumbency, not to acts done after the office itself had ceased to exist. A further direction requiring fresh route-amendment applications was inconsistent with the earlier remand, which had already fixed the scope of consideration. Defective publication of notice inviting objections was material because it denied objectors the statutory opportunity to respond. The impugned remand order was substantially maintained, subject to correction of the unnecessary requirement for fresh applications.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:27:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433349" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (9) TMI 348 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184139</link>
      <description>A fresh constitution of a Regional Transport Authority by later Gazette notification displaced the earlier authority immediately, so proceedings taken by the superseded body were void for lack of jurisdiction. The de facto doctrine did not cure the defect because it applies to defective incumbency, not to acts done after the office itself had ceased to exist. A further direction requiring fresh route-amendment applications was inconsistent with the earlier remand, which had already fixed the scope of consideration. Defective publication of notice inviting objections was material because it denied objectors the statutory opportunity to respond. The impugned remand order was substantially maintained, subject to correction of the unnecessary requirement for fresh applications.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Sep 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184139</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>