https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298177 Additional grounds were permitted in review because the omitted matters went to the root of the impugned order and disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record. The allotment was then found unsustainable because the mandatory requirements of due publicity and consideration of competing claims under the allotment rules were not shown to have been followed. Applying the principle that when a statute or rule prescribes a manner for doing an act it must be done in that manner or not at all, the court held that breach of the prescribed procedure vitiated the administrative action and affected the approved resolution. The review was allowed, the earlier order was recalled, and the allotment orders were quashed. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Oct 2021 15:54:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298177 Additional grounds were permitted in review because the omitted matters went to the root of the impugned order and disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record. The allotment was then found unsustainable because the mandatory requirements of due publicity and consideration of competing claims under the allotment rules were not shown to have been followed. Applying the principle that when a statute or rule prescribes a manner for doing an act it must be done in that manner or not at all, the court held that breach of the prescribed procedure vitiated the administrative action and affected the approved resolution. The review was allowed, the earlier order was recalled, and the allotment orders were quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298177