https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276963 The court dismissed all three writ petitions challenging the legality and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 2 of 2004, finding it validly promulgated by the Governor under Article 213 of the Constitution. The court held that the Governor's power to promulgate the Ordinance was not limited to the recess of the Legislature and could be exercised even when the Assembly was dissolved. It concluded that there was no constitutional breakdown or financial emergency warranting the invocation of Articles 355, 356, or 360 of the Constitution. en-us Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Nov 2018 12:15:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276963 The court dismissed all three writ petitions challenging the legality and constitutionality of Ordinance No. 2 of 2004, finding it validly promulgated by the Governor under Article 213 of the Constitution. The court held that the Governor's power to promulgate the Ordinance was not limited to the recess of the Legislature and could be exercised even when the Assembly was dissolved. It concluded that there was no constitutional breakdown or financial emergency warranting the invocation of Articles 355, 356, or 360 of the Constitution. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276963