https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288017 Section 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was upheld as a valid delegation because the Act fixed the maximum rent, expressed a clear policy of agrarian reform and tenant protection, and supplied guidance through the surrounding provisions and section 12(3). The Government's power to notify a lower maximum rent was treated as a subsidiary power within that policy framework, not as uncontrolled legislative power. The Article 31 challenge therefore failed, and the notification was sustained. The further objection that the power was exhausted by the first notification also failed, because section 14 of the Bombay General Clauses Act allowed the power to be exercised from time to time as required. en-us Thu, 25 Aug 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 May 2020 12:00:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288017 Section 6(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was upheld as a valid delegation because the Act fixed the maximum rent, expressed a clear policy of agrarian reform and tenant protection, and supplied guidance through the surrounding provisions and section 12(3). The Government's power to notify a lower maximum rent was treated as a subsidiary power within that policy framework, not as uncontrolled legislative power. The Article 31 challenge therefore failed, and the notification was sustained. The further objection that the power was exhausted by the first notification also failed, because section 14 of the Bombay General Clauses Act allowed the power to be exercised from time to time as required. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Aug 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288017