https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372966 Under the appointment scheme for Presiding Officers of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Selection Committee's recommendation was only advisory, and the Central Government acting through the ACC retained the final power to accept or decline appointments. Judicial review under Article 226 was confined to examining whether the prescribed procedure was followed, relevant material was considered, and the decision was free from extraneous influence or malice; the writ court could not reappraise the Intelligence Bureau material or substitute its own view for that of the ACC. The record had to disclose the basis of the decision when challenged, but separate communication of reasons was not required. en-us Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Jan 2019 06:30:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372966 Under the appointment scheme for Presiding Officers of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Selection Committee's recommendation was only advisory, and the Central Government acting through the ACC retained the final power to accept or decline appointments. Judicial review under Article 226 was confined to examining whether the prescribed procedure was followed, relevant material was considered, and the decision was free from extraneous influence or malice; the writ court could not reappraise the Intelligence Bureau material or substitute its own view for that of the ACC. The record had to disclose the basis of the decision when challenged, but separate communication of reasons was not required. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372966