https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188864 Executive authorities could not direct extension or reconstitution of the first Board of Directors, because that statutory function under the bye-laws vested in the Registrar; such intervention was therefore invalid. The Registrar did have power under bye-law 29 to nominate, modify and curtail the tenure of the first Board, but the power had to be exercised independently and not at the behest of the Minister, so the impugned exercise was unsustainable. Section 65A revisional power also could not be invoked where no proceeding was pending and no relevant order existed. The challenged orders were held unsustainable and fresh election steps were directed in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 27 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Dec 2016 12:00:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188864 Executive authorities could not direct extension or reconstitution of the first Board of Directors, because that statutory function under the bye-laws vested in the Registrar; such intervention was therefore invalid. The Registrar did have power under bye-law 29 to nominate, modify and curtail the tenure of the first Board, but the power had to be exercised independently and not at the behest of the Minister, so the impugned exercise was unsustainable. Section 65A revisional power also could not be invoked where no proceeding was pending and no relevant order existed. The challenged orders were held unsustainable and fresh election steps were directed in accordance with law. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188864