https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196334 The court held that laying an Ordinance before the State Legislature is not mandatory under Article 213(2) of the Constitution. It was determined that an Ordinance cannot create enduring or irreversible rights in a citizen. The re-promulgation of an Ordinance by the Governor was deemed unconstitutional in this case, highlighting the importance of justification for such actions. While the first three Ordinances were assumed valid, subsequent ones were struck down due to inadequate justification. The judgment clarified that transactions under an Ordinance do not have lasting effects beyond its expiration, emphasizing the temporary nature of Ordinances. en-us Mon, 02 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Feb 2025 11:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196334 The court held that laying an Ordinance before the State Legislature is not mandatory under Article 213(2) of the Constitution. It was determined that an Ordinance cannot create enduring or irreversible rights in a citizen. The re-promulgation of an Ordinance by the Governor was deemed unconstitutional in this case, highlighting the importance of justification for such actions. While the first three Ordinances were assumed valid, subsequent ones were struck down due to inadequate justification. The judgment clarified that transactions under an Ordinance do not have lasting effects beyond its expiration, emphasizing the temporary nature of Ordinances. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 02 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196334