https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187764 Section 74(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000 was upheld as valid conditional legislation, not an excessive delegation, because Parliament laid down the policy and left successor States only the choice to continue or abolish the State Administrative Tribunal. Section 74(4) was treated as ancillary and did not require a separate Central Government direction or notification before abolition took effect. The challenge based on mala fides also failed because the record showed a bona fide policy decision, informed by the post-L. Chandra Kumar position, the Tribunal's utility, and broader policy considerations. The abolition of the Tribunal was therefore sustained. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Jun 2024 18:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187764 Section 74(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Re-organisation Act, 2000 was upheld as valid conditional legislation, not an excessive delegation, because Parliament laid down the policy and left successor States only the choice to continue or abolish the State Administrative Tribunal. Section 74(4) was treated as ancillary and did not require a separate Central Government direction or notification before abolition took effect. The challenge based on mala fides also failed because the record showed a bona fide policy decision, informed by the post-L. Chandra Kumar position, the Tribunal's utility, and broader policy considerations. The abolition of the Tribunal was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187764