Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Moreover, the statutory provision does not fully lay down certain objective standards to be adopted by the Cane Commissioner. It is true that Clause 6 of the Order shows that the Cane Commissioner shall have regard to (i) the crushing capacity of the factory, (ii) the availability of sugarcane in the reserved area, and (iii) the need for production of sugar. But it is well known that the words "have regard to", occurring in statutes are neither exhaustive nor absolutely mandatory. The leading decision is that given in Ryots of Gara-bandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi A.I.R. 1943 P. C. 164 at 180, where their Lordships upheld the view of the Madras High Court that these words only mean that the provisions must be taken into consideration but that the authority concerned was not strictly bound by those provisions. This judgment of the Privy Council was cited with approval in Mysore State Electricity Board v. Bangalore Woollen, Cotton, and Silk Mills Ltd. .