https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310145 A former Chairman was held to have locus standi to challenge the supersession of the Corporation because his office and emoluments were directly affected and he was not a stranger to the dispute. Section 38 was treated as an independent supersession power, so a prior inquiry under Section 36 was not mandatory; allegations of mala fides also failed on the facts. The notification was not invalid for absence of recorded reasons or non-supply of an inquiry report, since the statute did not require reasons in the notification and the grounds had been communicated. The record showed relevant material for the Government's subjective satisfaction, and the Central Government's approval and ministerial action were upheld as valid under the Business Rules and Article 166. en-us Wed, 22 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Oct 2023 12:01:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310145 A former Chairman was held to have locus standi to challenge the supersession of the Corporation because his office and emoluments were directly affected and he was not a stranger to the dispute. Section 38 was treated as an independent supersession power, so a prior inquiry under Section 36 was not mandatory; allegations of mala fides also failed on the facts. The notification was not invalid for absence of recorded reasons or non-supply of an inquiry report, since the statute did not require reasons in the notification and the grounds had been communicated. The record showed relevant material for the Government's subjective satisfaction, and the Central Government's approval and ministerial action were upheld as valid under the Business Rules and Article 166. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 22 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310145