<?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>1981 (8) TMI 243 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200620</link>
    <description>A State may frame a fair price shop distribution scheme under its executive power where the subject lies within its legislative competence, and the scheme is not invalid merely because it is not treated as a sub-delegated exercise of power under the Essential Commodities Act. The amendment and scheme also did not require fresh Central Government concurrence, laying before Parliament, or prior hearing, because the measure was legislative in character and the cited procedural objections were inapplicable. Preference to consumers&#039; cooperative societies in allotment of fair price shops was upheld as a reasonable classification with a direct nexus to fair distribution of essential commodities, and no unlawful monopoly or discrimination arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Apr 2018 15:25:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=516274" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (8) TMI 243 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200620</link>
      <description>A State may frame a fair price shop distribution scheme under its executive power where the subject lies within its legislative competence, and the scheme is not invalid merely because it is not treated as a sub-delegated exercise of power under the Essential Commodities Act. The amendment and scheme also did not require fresh Central Government concurrence, laying before Parliament, or prior hearing, because the measure was legislative in character and the cited procedural objections were inapplicable. Preference to consumers&#039; cooperative societies in allotment of fair price shops was upheld as a reasonable classification with a direct nexus to fair distribution of essential commodities, and no unlawful monopoly or discrimination arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200620</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>