<?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>2004 (12) TMI 709 - Madras High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275805</link>
    <description>Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, and a court will not interfere merely because an administrative breach is alleged. A challenge to the shifting of a Village Administrative Office did not disclose violation or infringement of any enforceable right, so the matter was found unfit for judicial interference. The writ petition was dismissed in limine, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2018 16:41:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=538682" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 709 - Madras High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275805</link>
      <description>Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, and a court will not interfere merely because an administrative breach is alleged. A challenge to the shifting of a Village Administrative Office did not disclose violation or infringement of any enforceable right, so the matter was found unfit for judicial interference. The writ petition was dismissed in limine, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>