<?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>1969 (2) TMI 184 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272648</link>
    <description>Administrative orders affecting civil consequences must be preceded by a fair opportunity of explanation, proper consideration of the defence, and a reasoned speaking order. The text notes that an unspeaking supersession order, which merely rejected the explanation without item-wise reasons, was inconsistent with natural justice, though the supersession itself was left undisturbed in the proceeding. It further states that appellate disposal by the Government was defective because the authority failed to record reasons and denied adjournment in circumstances that deprived the appellant of a meaningful hearing, so the appellate order was quashed and the matter remanded for de novo consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 May 2018 16:27:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519868" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (2) TMI 184 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272648</link>
      <description>Administrative orders affecting civil consequences must be preceded by a fair opportunity of explanation, proper consideration of the defence, and a reasoned speaking order. The text notes that an unspeaking supersession order, which merely rejected the explanation without item-wise reasons, was inconsistent with natural justice, though the supersession itself was left undisturbed in the proceeding. It further states that appellate disposal by the Government was defective because the authority failed to record reasons and denied adjournment in circumstances that deprived the appellant of a meaningful hearing, so the appellate order was quashed and the matter remanded for de novo consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272648</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>