2010 (7) TMI 938

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....- ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI J.-Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy, the learned High Court Government Pleader, is directed to take notice for the respondents. The petitioner has raised the challenge to the order, dated February 3, 2010 (annexure E) passed by the second respondent. The advertance to the facts of the case may not be necessary. Ms. Vani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e impugned order is not warranted, so contends Ms. Vani. Per contra, Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, submits that the provision of law appears to have been inadvertently shown but that does not mean that the impugned order itself is unsustainable. He submits that it has to be taken that the impugned order is passed in exercise of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....] 3 SCC 482, wherein it is held that the omission or error in mentioning the correct provision of law will not vitiate the order. But the problem is even if it is assumed that the impugned order is passed by the second respondent in exercise of the power conferred by section 39(2) of the said Act, then also the order does not become upholdable, because under section 39(2), the prescribed authority....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng a comprehensive statement of objections or an affidavit. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is extracted hereinbelow: "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise,....