Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 5 in The Explosive Substances Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 166 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Article 258 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The General Clauses Act, 1897
Section 2 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Gullapalli Nageswara Rao And Others vs Andhra Pradesh State Road ... on 5 November, 1958
Article 154(1) of the Constitution provides that the executive power of the State shall be vested in the Governor and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution. Article 163 further provides that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advice the Governor in exercise of his functions. Article 166(1) requires that all executive action of the Government of State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor. Clause (3) of this Article provides that the Governor shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business in so far as it is not business with respect to which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion. The combined effect of all these provisions was considered by the Supreme Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 1959 SC 308 (325) and it was observed as follows:-
The Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Mount Corporation And Ors. vs Director Of Industries And Commerce In ... on 14 April, 1964
From the above observations it would be clear that in Mount Corporation's case, AIR 1965 Mys 143 the orders of the Sponsoring authority were not considered bad because it had framed its own rules to regulate its own business but because the decision taken by the sponsoring authority was not to decision of that authority but of another committee which the State Government had constituted and which the State Government had no authority to constitute and because the sponsoring authority was turned into a channel through which those decisions were conveyed to the licensing authority. The above observations, therefore, do not support Mr. Chawla's contention that the Governor while granting sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act read with notification No. 33/2/57 Police (IV) Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, No. 48303 dated 4th May 1957, issued under Art. 258(1) of the Constitution could not make rules to regulate the business of granting sanction even though the State Government performing the function of the Central Government while giving sanction.