https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185707 Prior approval under Section 20-A(1) of TADA had to be granted by the District Superintendent of Police, the authority specifically named in the statute. The Supreme Court applied the principle that a mandatory statutory power vested in a designated officer cannot be exercised by a different, even superior, police . Approval by a higher officer did not satisfy the requirement because the statute required application of mind by the specified authority alone. The absence of that approval was a substantive illegality and independently vitiated the TADA trial. en-us Wed, 04 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:44:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185707 Prior approval under Section 20-A(1) of TADA had to be granted by the District Superintendent of Police, the authority specifically named in the statute. The Supreme Court applied the principle that a mandatory statutory power vested in a designated officer cannot be exercised by a different, even superior, police . Approval by a higher officer did not satisfy the requirement because the statute required application of mind by the specified authority alone. The absence of that approval was a substantive illegality and independently vitiated the TADA trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185707