<?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>1956 (9) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303723</link>
    <description>A challenge to a transport permit order on grounds of mala fides or bias requires clear pleading and proof of a real disqualifying interest; mere suspicion or disagreement with the authority&#039;s appreciation of facts is insufficient. The Court noted that no personal, pecuniary, or official interest was specifically shown against the decision-maker, and that the Government was competent to examine whether subordinate transport authorities had acted illegally, irregularly, or improperly. Its differing view on the transfer of permits fell within its jurisdiction and discretion, and did not justify certiorari. The order was therefore not shown to be vitiated by bias, and no ground for judicial interference was made out.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2022 13:08:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=687430" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (9) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303723</link>
      <description>A challenge to a transport permit order on grounds of mala fides or bias requires clear pleading and proof of a real disqualifying interest; mere suspicion or disagreement with the authority&#039;s appreciation of facts is insufficient. The Court noted that no personal, pecuniary, or official interest was specifically shown against the decision-maker, and that the Government was competent to examine whether subordinate transport authorities had acted illegally, irregularly, or improperly. Its differing view on the transfer of permits fell within its jurisdiction and discretion, and did not justify certiorari. The order was therefore not shown to be vitiated by bias, and no ground for judicial interference was made out.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303723</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>