https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461189 Where a statute confers discretion on a quasi-judicial authority to regulate its own procedure, that discretion may vary by stage and is not frozen by an earlier choice to permit oral hearing. Section 32 of the Goa Lokayukta Act, 2011 was treated as enabling, not a condition precedent, so the Lokayukta could regulate procedure without framed regulations. On an interlocutory application under Section 27, the petitioner had no absolute right to oral arguments; written submissions were sufficient at that stage, and dispensing with oral hearing was held fair despite possible future consequences. The challenge to the procedural order therefore failed. en-us Thu, 03 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Mar 2025 19:14:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461189 Where a statute confers discretion on a quasi-judicial authority to regulate its own procedure, that discretion may vary by stage and is not frozen by an earlier choice to permit oral hearing. Section 32 of the Goa Lokayukta Act, 2011 was treated as enabling, not a condition precedent, so the Lokayukta could regulate procedure without framed regulations. On an interlocutory application under Section 27, the petitioner had no absolute right to oral arguments; written submissions were sufficient at that stage, and dispensing with oral hearing was held fair despite possible future consequences. The challenge to the procedural order therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461189