<?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>1988 (11) TMI 352 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192549</link>
    <description>Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act permits a statutory, inquisitorial fact-finding inquiry where the Government bona fide considers investigation of a definite matter of public importance necessary. Judicial review of that administrative satisfaction is limited to mala fides, irrelevant considerations, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or non-application of mind. Prior reports under an earlier executive arrangement do not prevent a fresh statutory inquiry where relevant material is considered and the decision receives ministerial approval. The inquiry notification remained valid for charges other than charges 4 and 14, which required separate administrative attention because of an earlier finding and insufficient consideration of vagueness. The Article 14 discrimination objection failed for want of material establishing unequal treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2017 18:11:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=471032" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (11) TMI 352 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192549</link>
      <description>Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act permits a statutory, inquisitorial fact-finding inquiry where the Government bona fide considers investigation of a definite matter of public importance necessary. Judicial review of that administrative satisfaction is limited to mala fides, irrelevant considerations, irrationality, procedural impropriety, or non-application of mind. Prior reports under an earlier executive arrangement do not prevent a fresh statutory inquiry where relevant material is considered and the decision receives ministerial approval. The inquiry notification remained valid for charges other than charges 4 and 14, which required separate administrative attention because of an earlier finding and insufficient consideration of vagueness. The Article 14 discrimination objection failed for want of material establishing unequal treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192549</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>