https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198750 Under clause 20 of the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, the Textile Commissioner's power to issue directions prohibiting manufacture or use of specified cloth or yarn was construed as requiring the period of operation to be stated. The word "may" in the enabling provision was read, in context, as carrying a mandatory duty where periodic review was built into the control scheme and affected persons needed certainty about duration. An indefinite prohibition was treated as inconsistent with that scheme and ultra vires clause 20; the impugned notification was ineffective to that extent. en-us Thu, 27 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198750 Under clause 20 of the Cotton Textiles (Control) Order, 1948, the Textile Commissioner's power to issue directions prohibiting manufacture or use of specified cloth or yarn was construed as requiring the period of operation to be stated. The word "may" in the enabling provision was read, in context, as carrying a mandatory duty where periodic review was built into the control scheme and affected persons needed certainty about duration. An indefinite prohibition was treated as inconsistent with that scheme and ultra vires clause 20; the impugned notification was ineffective to that extent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Jan 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198750