https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195790 An investigating agency's request did not bind the aviation authority when considering de-registration of an aircraft; it was only a relevant factor unless the statute made it mandatory. Rule 30(6) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 was treated as an enabling power requiring the authority to apply its own mind and exercise statutory discretion on relevant considerations, rather than deferring to an outside agency or refusing to decide because of pending investigation. The proper judicial response was to direct a lawful reconsideration of the request, not to command de-registration itself, because a court cannot dictate the substantive exercise of a statutory discretion. en-us Fri, 10 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:26:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195790 An investigating agency's request did not bind the aviation authority when considering de-registration of an aircraft; it was only a relevant factor unless the statute made it mandatory. Rule 30(6) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 was treated as an enabling power requiring the authority to apply its own mind and exercise statutory discretion on relevant considerations, rather than deferring to an outside agency or refusing to decide because of pending investigation. The proper judicial response was to direct a lawful reconsideration of the request, not to command de-registration itself, because a court cannot dictate the substantive exercise of a statutory discretion. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 10 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195790