https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277070 Section 256 of the Constitution Act was construed as requiring consultation with the District Magistrate of the district where the person was then working, or with the Chief Presidency Magistrate if he was working under him. On the facts, the borrowed Magistrate's appointment was not shown to have been made without the appropriate consultation, so the challenge failed. The provision was also treated as directory rather than mandatory, meaning that any non-compliance would not, by itself, invalidate an otherwise valid appointment unless the statute expressly made invalidity the consequence. The appointment was therefore upheld and the order under challenge remained undisturbed. en-us Mon, 09 Apr 1945 00:00:00 +0630 Fri, 23 Nov 2018 15:04:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277070 Section 256 of the Constitution Act was construed as requiring consultation with the District Magistrate of the district where the person was then working, or with the Chief Presidency Magistrate if he was working under him. On the facts, the borrowed Magistrate's appointment was not shown to have been made without the appropriate consultation, so the challenge failed. The provision was also treated as directory rather than mandatory, meaning that any non-compliance would not, by itself, invalidate an otherwise valid appointment unless the statute expressly made invalidity the consequence. The appointment was therefore upheld and the order under challenge remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Apr 1945 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277070