Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 44 (0.32 seconds)
Alapati Seshadri Rao & Co. And Ors. vs The Agricultural Market Committee, ... on 1 March, 1976
cites
The Bombay University Act, 1974
Section 3 in The Bombay University Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
Madan Gopal Daga vs The Agricultural Market Committee And ... on 18 June, 1974
There cannot be any quarrel with this proposition and as I pointed out at the outset Sri Y., Satyanarayana did not submit that the bye-law was inconsistent with the rule, but submitted that it was not open to the Government to delegate the power to fix the fees to the Committee when the statute did not empower it to do so. Apparently, the matter was not argued before the learned Judges who decided cases in Madan Gopal v. The Agricultural Market Committee (supra) in this form. No doubt there is an observation in the Judgment "it cannot be complained that there is any further delegation of the power by the Government without the authority of the legislature", It cannot be complained that there is any further delegation of the power by the Government without the authority of the legislature". It cannot be said there is no delegation of the power at all to fix the fees as there is such a delegation under Rule. 48. But as I have stated above, such delegation is justified even though not expressly authorised by the legislature, as the power to delegate can be implied in the circumstances of the case.
Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammadand ... vs The State Of Bombay And Another on 2 May, 1961
51. We may mention in this connection that in dealing with the levy of market fees under S. 11 of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 (Bombay Act 22 of 1939), the Supreme Court held in Mohd. Hussain v. State of Bombay, that R. 53 framed under the Act authorising levy of fees at rates specified under the Bye laws as ultra vires, because S. 11 of the Act gave power to the market Committee subject to the provisions of the rules and subject to such maximum as may be prescribed to levy such fees. In the absence of the maximum being prescribed by R. 53, it was held that the bye-laws, which fixed them are ultra vires of the Section. After this decision was rendered, the rules were amended and the maximum rate was fixed.
The Barium Chemicals Ltd. And Anr vs The Company Law Board And Others on 4 May, 1966
5. The doctrine of 'Delegatus non potest delegare' is not a rule of law but a rule of construction. Sub-delegation therefore can be sustained if permitted by an express provision or by necessary implication from the provisions of the Statute, Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company law Board, ; Union of India v. P.K. Roy, .
Union Of India & Anr vs P.K. Roy & Ors on 9 November, 1967
5. The doctrine of 'Delegatus non potest delegare' is not a rule of law but a rule of construction. Sub-delegation therefore can be sustained if permitted by an express provision or by necessary implication from the provisions of the Statute, Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company law Board, ; Union of India v. P.K. Roy, .
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. And State Of ... vs Bhanamal Gulzarimal Ltd. And Ors. on 16 December, 1959
4. On the same principle sub-delegation is also valid, if permitted by the Act, provided sufficient guidance is given, and it is intended to achieve the objects of the Act. For instances where such sub-delegation has been held to be valid, refer to H. Bagla v. State of M.P. , where the legislature authorised the Central Government to delegate its powers to make order under S. 3 of Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act (24 of 1946) not only to the State Government but also to any officer subordinate to the Central or State Government; George Walkem v. L.M.D.P. Board, (AIR 1939 PC 36), where the Lt. Governor delegated the power of making schemes to the Marketing Board; Union of India v. Bhanamal Gulzarimal Ltd., where the Controller was delegated the power by the Government to fix the maximum prices for Iron and Steel; W.I. Theaters v. Municipal Corporation, Poona, where the Municipality was held entitled to levy any other tax for the purposes of the Act, though the nature for the purposes of the Act, though the nature of that tax has not been enumerated by the Act; State of Bombay v. Shivabalak , (AIR 1965 SC 6610 where it was held that the delegate can authorise his subordinate to gather information to enable him to pass the necessary orders required by the statute; Arnold Rodricks v. State of Maharashtra, , where it was held that there is no difference between a case where the legislature authorising sub-delegation by statute or by conferring power on the State Government to confer duties on Commissioners (Newly introduced) or other officers performing executive and revenue duties; Hapur Municipality v. Raghuvendra, where it was held that the power to levy local taxes is vested in a local body for their local needs which depends upon local enquiries can be left to the representative bodies in which event there can be no excessive delegation; Barium Chemicals Ltd., v. Company Law Board if it is warranted by the express provisions or by necessary implication from the statute, such as the control retained by a nominee of the legislature; Khambhalia Municipality v. Gujarat State, where the delegation by the Government to the Development Commissioner to declare an area to be a gram or nagar was held to be valid; Delhi Municipality v. B.G.S. & W. Mills , (AIR 19689 SC 1232) and J.R.G. Mfg. Asscn.
Section 4 in The Bombay University Act, 1974 [Entire Act]
M.C. V. S. Arunachala Nadar Etc vs The State Of Madras & Others on 6 October, 1958
Power is also given under the Act for the Market Committee to make bye-laws for the regulation of the business and the conditions of the trading therein. Offences under this Act have to be tried by a Court, not inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate, more a Magistrate of a First Class. The schedule to the Act gives the crop or crops or products as commercial crops for the purpose of the Act and the rate or rates at which the market fees have to be levied." We have already extracted the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Arunachala Nadar v. State of Madras about the nature of this statute. The provisions of the present Act, Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act (16 of 1966) also contains similar provisions as the previous Act. We have already extracted in brief the provisions of the present statute in the beginning of our judgment. If the Market Committee makes bye-laws it would be doing so only to regulate its own procedure and the conditions of trading in the notified area covered under the jurisdiction of the Market Committee. The Act also contemplates that the duty of the Market Committee is to enforce the provisions of this Act. The Bye-laws made by it under Section 34 of the Act are always subject to the rules and have to be made with the previous sanction of the Director of Marketing who is an Officer appointed under this Act. They have therefore the power to regulate the business and the conditions of trading in the market under their jurisdiction. Every bye-law made under this Section has to be published in the A. P. Gazette and in the District Gazette and come into force only after three months from the date of publication. Sufficient power is therefore ratained with the Government to control the activities of the Market Committee. The Market Committee are manned by representatives of traders, growers etc. and also nominees of the Government, including officers. All the moneys received by the Market Committee have to be credited to a Market Committee fund and have to be expended only for the purposes mentioned in the Act. There is thus sufficient guidance given in the Act for the levy of the fees contemplated by the Act. Rule. 48 framed under this Act also provides that every application under Section 7 of the Act shall be accompanied with such fees which shall not exceed Rs. 100/-. The fees may be fixed by the Market Committees by its bye-laws subject to that maximum.