Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 39 (0.27 seconds)The Petroleum And Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006
Section 62 in The Petroleum And Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Section 61 in The Petroleum And Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Petroleum And Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in The Petroleum And Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Petroleum And Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
The Electricity Act, 2003
Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 January, 2014
Similarly, in Hardeep Singh
Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 it was reiterated that an interpretation
which renders a provision otiose should be avoided, otherwise it would
mean that in enacting such a provision, the legislature was involved in an
exercise in futility and the product came as a purposeless piece of legislation
and that the provision had been enacted without any purpose and the entire
exercise to enact such a provision was most unwarranted, besides being
uncharitable.
U.P. State Electricity Board. Lucknow & ... vs City Board, Mussoorie & Ors. Etc. (And ... on 8 February, 1985
29. The preface to Section 22, making the same 'Subject to the provisions
of the Act' cannot also be read as making the aforesaid well settled
principles of law inapplicable to interpretation thereof. As aforesaid, none
of the other provisions of the Act prescribe as a function of the PNGRB or
empower the PNGRB to lay down transportation tariff and the manner of
determining such tariff. Though the Supreme Court in U.P. State
Electricity Board, Lucknow Vs. City Board, Mussoorie (1985) 2 SCC 16
W.P.(C) No.3698/2013 Page 32 of 45
followed in Meghalaya State Electricity Board Vs. Jagadindra Arjun
(2001) 6 SCC 446 has held that a provision in the statute, to fix the tariff in
accordance with any Regulations made in this behalf only means that the
tariff shall be in accordance with such Regulations, if any and does not
mean that the tariff cannot be fixed without Regulations and in Accountant
General, State of M.P. Vs. S.K. Dubey (2012) 4 SCC 578 held that a
provision in a statute of fixing the salary and other allowances in accordance
with the Rules framed by the State Govt. has to be read as "in accordance
with the rules, if any prescribed by the State Government and not that in the
absence of the Rules the salary and allowances cannot be fixed" and that
such provisions cannot be interpreted as mandating what is required to be
done, by Regulations only, but in all those statutes under consideration the
statutory provisions in the Act enabled the thing to be done but in
accordance with the Rules/Regulations (we may record that the matter has
been referred to a larger Bench). In the PNGRB Act on the contrary, each
of the provisions thereof dealing with fixing the transportation rate,
regulating the transportation rate and/or laying down the transportation tariff
and the manner of determining such tariff, expressly provide the same to be
done by Regulations and thus the preface to Section 22 cannot be read as
W.P.(C) No.3698/2013 Page 33 of 45
permitting transportation tariff and the manner of determining such tariff to
be laid down otherwise than by way of Regulations.