<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1967 (2) TMI 111 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299570</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that the declaration of a municipal area as a nagar under section 9(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act was valid because the delegated power included authority to conduct the required inquiry, the Development Commissioner was duly authorised, and the allegation of mala fides failed on the facts. On the constitutional challenge, the Court found that sections 9(1) and 9(2), read with the Act&#039;s scheme and inquiry rules, reflected a clear policy of three-tier panchayat organisation and supplied objective standards through population limits and structural guidance. The majority therefore rejected the plea of excessive delegation and upheld the notification and the provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2021 10:58:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=664660" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (2) TMI 111 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299570</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that the declaration of a municipal area as a nagar under section 9(1) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act was valid because the delegated power included authority to conduct the required inquiry, the Development Commissioner was duly authorised, and the allegation of mala fides failed on the facts. On the constitutional challenge, the Court found that sections 9(1) and 9(2), read with the Act&#039;s scheme and inquiry rules, reflected a clear policy of three-tier panchayat organisation and supplied objective standards through population limits and structural guidance. The majority therefore rejected the plea of excessive delegation and upheld the notification and the provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299570</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>