Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.25 seconds)Section 15 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Revenue Recovery Act, 1890
Section 11 in The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
M/S.Gsr Stone Crushers vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 September, 2022
10. The petitioners placed reliance on the principle laid down by
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in M/s GSR Stone Crusher vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh2, wherein it was held that penal consequences
under Rule 26 of the A.P.MMC Rules must be enforced through
prosecution in a criminal court of competent jurisdiction. During the
course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the State
has already preferred intra Court appeals challenging the said common
judgment. The same are pending. There are no interim orders.
Nallajerla Murali Krishna @ Murali vs The State Of Telangana, Through Public ... on 9 October, 2014
"15.Since the petitioner have placed reliance on the decision
of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to support their
contention and the said decision having been considered by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in its order dt.25.02.2025 in
W.P.No.25814 of 2023, this Court is of the view that the
decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh cannot
advance the case of the petitioner, more so, when it is not
shown to this Court as to the order of this Court not
considering the provisions in correct perspective."
The State Of Meghalaya vs All Dimasa Students Union Hasao ... on 3 July, 2019
15-i. Relevant paragraphs in the said judgment are extracted
below: -
Afzal Ullah vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 20 September, 1963
In Afzal Ullah v. The State of Uttar Pradesh reported in
1963 SCC OnLine SC 76, it was argued that the impugned
bye-laws were invalid, because they were outside the
authority conferred on the delegate to make bye-laws by
Section 298(2) of the Act, and it was also contended that the
bye-laws were invalid for the additional reason that they
were inconsistent with Section 241 of the Act. Rejecting the
said contentions, this Court observed as follows:
Emperor vs Sibnath Banerji on 17 July, 1945
35. From reference to the precedents discussed above and
taking the following legal principles that may be relevant in
adjudicating cases where subordinate legislation is
challenged on the ground of being 'Ultra vires' the parent
Act: (a) The doctrine of ultra vires envisages that a Rule
making body must function within the purview of the Rule
making authority, conferred on it by the parent Act. As the
body making Rules or Regulations has no inherent power of
its own to make rules, but derives such power only from the
statute, it must necessarily function within the purview of the
statute. Delegated legislation should not travel beyond the
purview of the parent Act. (b) Ultra vires may arise in
several ways; there may be simple excess of power over
what is conferred by the parent Act; delegated legislation
may be inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act;
there may be non-compliance with the procedural
requirement as laid down in the parent Act. It is the function
of the courts to keep all authorities within the confines of the
law by supplying the doctrine of ultra vires. (c) If a rule is
challenged as being ultra vires, on the ground that it exceeds
the power conferred by the parent Act, the Court must,
firstly, determine and consider the source of power which is
relatable to the rule. Secondly, it must determine the meaning
of the subordinate legislation itself and finally, it must decide
whether the subordinate legislation is consistent with and
within the scope of the power delegated. (d) Delegated rule-
making power in statutes generally follows a standardized
pattern. A broad section grants authority with phrases like 'to
carry out the provisions' or 'to carry out the purposes.'
Another sub-section specifies areas for delegation, often
using language like 'without prejudice to the generality of
the foregoing power.' In determining if the impugned rule is
intra vires/ultra vires the scope of delegated power, Courts
have applied the 'generality versus enumeration' principle.