https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188972 Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 was upheld as constitutionally valid because the statute, read as a whole, disclosed a definite policy of slum improvement, clearance and tenant protection, so the competent authority's discretion was not unguided or arbitrary under Article 14. The power under section 19(3) was also treated as permissible delegated implementation, not excessive delegation, because the enactment supplied the governing standard and limits. The restraint on executing an eviction decree was held to be a reasonable restriction on property rights under Article 19(5), as it served the public purpose of protecting slum dwellers and was supported by procedural safeguards. en-us Fri, 21 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Dec 2016 10:41:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188972 Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 was upheld as constitutionally valid because the statute, read as a whole, disclosed a definite policy of slum improvement, clearance and tenant protection, so the competent authority's discretion was not unguided or arbitrary under Article 14. The power under section 19(3) was also treated as permissible delegated implementation, not excessive delegation, because the enactment supplied the governing standard and limits. The restraint on executing an eviction decree was held to be a reasonable restriction on property rights under Article 19(5), as it served the public purpose of protecting slum dwellers and was supported by procedural safeguards. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 21 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188972