Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)Section 10 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 64 in Income Tax Rules, 1962 [Entire Act]
Union Of India vs Col. J. N. Sinha And Anr on 12 August, 1970
30. As regards the third contention, viz., that the impugned order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice, it may at once be stated that if the Regulation 48(a) as it stands is valid, then the impugned order cannot be struck down on this ground. As is laid down in Union of India v. J. N. Sinha, (supra) the principles of natural justice, cannot be elevated to the status of fundamental rights. The Legislature can by express or implied provision do away with them. If the power under the impugned Regulation 48(a) is meant to be used in circumstances where it is not practicable to follow the principles of natural justice, then it will defeat the very purpose for which the regulation is made if it is held that the impugned order is bad for breach of the said principles. If, therefore, I were to uphold the validity of the impugned regulation, notwithstanding its arbitrary conferment of power, it would not have been possible to strike down the impugned order on this ground.
Article 311 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Air India Corporation, Bombay vs V. A. Rebellow & Anr on 24 February, 1972
In Air India Corporation, Bombay v. V. A. Rebello, although the very regulation, viz. Regulation 48 which is challenged in the present case figured, the validity of the said Regulation was not challenged and what was actually challenged was whether the complainant there was a workman and whether the order was of a discharge simpliciter or of dismissal. In that case, the Court found while upholding the dismissal, that the reasons for dismissal were actually disclosed by the authorities in their written statement filed before the Tribunal on merits and those reasons dispened with the holding of an enquiry and the order passed was that of a simple termination of service. It is difficult to understand as to how this authority helps the respondents in any way.
Chinta Lingam & Ors vs Government Of India & Ors on 30 November, 1970
In Chinta Lingam v. Govt. of India, . The challenge was to the control order issued under S. 3(2)(d) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 imposing restrictions on movement of rice and paddy. What was actually argued on behalf of the petitioners in that case was that in the absence of provision of appeal or revision against the order passed by the District Collector or the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies to whom the powers were delegated by the State Government, the delegation of power was excessive. The Court, while considering this argument, pointed out that the permit was to be granted either by the State Government or by responsible officers of the rank of the District Collector or the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies. It was conceded on behalf of the petitioners that if the State Government alone had the power to issue the permits, the challenge on the ground of unreasonableness of the restrictions would not be available. The Court held that there was no bar to anyone of the aggrieved party approaching the State Government by means of a representation for a final decision even if the matter had been dealt with by the District Collector or the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies in the first instance and the permit had been refused or wrongly withheld by those officers. Hence according to the Court, the absence of the provision for appeal or revision could be of no consequence. It is in fills context that the Court referred to its earlier decision. viz., (supra) and another decision and quoted with approval the observation that the power was discretionary but it was not necessarily discriminatory, and abuse of power could not be easily assumed. The Court also added the further observation made in the said earlier cases that there was, moreover, a presumption that public officials would discharge their duties honestly and in accordance with the rules of law. I am unable to understand as to how this case takes the respondents any further. As stated earlier, these observations have to be read in the context of their peculiar facts. Thus read they cannot be construed to mean that such conferment of power will in no case be violative of the guarantee of equality under the Constitution. In fact, in paragraph 7 of this decision itself it has been pointed out by the Court, referring to its earlier decision. viz., , that the power under S. 3(2)(d) of the Act in question did not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation because the Central Government had been given sufficient and proper guidance for exercising its powers in effectuating the policy of the statute.
Moti Ram Deka Etc vs General Manager, N.E.F. ... on 5 December, 1963
"113. Applying the principle laid down in the above case to the present Rule, I find on scrutiny of the Rule that it does not lay down any principle or policy for guiding the exercise of discretion by the authority who will terminate the service in the matter of selection or classification. Arbitrary and uncontrolled power is left in the authority to select at its will any person against whom action will be taken. The Rule, thus enables the authority concerned to discriminate between two railway servants to both of whom R. 149(3) equally applied by taking action in one case and not taking it in the other. In the absence of any guiding principle in the exercise of the discretion by the authority the Rule has, therefore, to be struck down as contravening the requirements of Art. 14 of the Constitution".
1