https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295676 The revisional power under section 32 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Act, 1964 was first vested in the Board, but once delegated to the Director under section 33 it became a function the Director could further authorise another officer to perform under section 2(h). The principle against further delegation did not bar that authorisation because the statute expressly permitted it, and rule 133A also contemplated disposal by the Board or a nominated officer. The Deputy Director therefore had jurisdiction to decide the revision, and the revisional order was valid. en-us Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2021 07:47:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295676 The revisional power under section 32 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Act, 1964 was first vested in the Board, but once delegated to the Director under section 33 it became a function the Director could further authorise another officer to perform under section 2(h). The principle against further delegation did not bar that authorisation because the statute expressly permitted it, and rule 133A also contemplated disposal by the Board or a nominated officer. The Deputy Director therefore had jurisdiction to decide the revision, and the revisional order was valid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295676