J P BANSAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(SC)-2003-3-15
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on March 12,2003

J.P.BANSAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHAMBHUBHAI MAHADEV AHIR [LAWS(GJH)-2014-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
NATWARSINH BADARSINH RATHOD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-2-275] [REFERRED TO]
MUKERJEET SHARMA AND ORS. VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2015-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
Koylanchal Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd VS. State of Jharkhand [LAWS(JHAR)-2012-4-112] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA PRASAD MOHAN LAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2004-4-150] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PRAKASH VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CHANDAULI [LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-154] [REFERRED TO]
CHET RAM GANGWAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-7-137] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
FAUJDAR VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-244] [REFERRED TO]
KUSHAL PAL SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-3-207] [REFERRED TO]
SACHIN THAKUR VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-156] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BILASPUR VS. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR [LAWS(CHH)-2013-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
HARENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A P HYDERABAD VS. NESE JILAKARA SREERAMULU [LAWS(APH)-2003-8-80] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. P VEMA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2007-2-42] [REFERRED TO]
B. VENKATESWARLU VS. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2014-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
P. SHYAMSUNDER SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2021-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
S MUTHUKUMARASWAMY PROPRIETOR OF FILLO HOTEL VS. GOVERNMENT OF PONDICHERRY [LAWS(MAD)-2006-2-267] [REFERRED TO]
DANIEL VS. A R SAFIULLAH [LAWS(MAD)-2004-1-79] [REFERRED TO]
PROFESSOR K. B. AGARWAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-2-166] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. SUSHILA DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-7-127] [REFERRED TO]
THOMAS VS. A A HENRY [LAWS(KER)-2008-2-9] [REFERRED TO]
Y. IBEHAIBI DEVI AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. [LAWS(MANIP)-2015-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
ANSAL PROPERTIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2008-1-101] [REFERRED TO]
MOHANLAL GUPTA VS. MADHYANCHAL GRAMIN BANK [LAWS(MPH)-2022-11-177] [REFERRED TO]
JASBIR SINGH CHHABRA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2010-3-58] [REFERRED TO]
ROSHAN LAL VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-8-403] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIRATH & 4 ORS VS. D M , LAKHIMPUR KHERI & 2 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-154] [REFERRED TO]
STRONG CONSTRUCTION VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-1-354] [REFERRED TO]
MRF MAZDOOR SANG VS. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(APH)-2013-10-102] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK JAIN VS. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(APH)-2011-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF A P LEGAL AFFIAR LAW N DEPT VS. M VENKATESHWARALU [LAWS(APH)-2007-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
JATIRMAY DAS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2004-12-30] [REFERRED TO]
CHARANJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2023-5-194] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2022-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
JIGNESGHKUMAR VASANTBHAI MEHTA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 [LAWS(GJH)-2016-2-345] [REFERRED]
DR. DASOJU SRAVAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-3-70] [REFERRED TO]
BASANTA BEHERA AND OTHERS VS. MENAKABALA BEHERA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2019-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
POONAM VERMA VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [LAWS(SC)-2007-12-54] [REFERRED TO]
B PREMANAND VS. MOHAN KOIKAL [LAWS(SC)-2011-3-100] [RELIED UPON [PARA 24] 13.]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – III VS. M/S. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS, LUDHIANA [LAWS(SC)-2014-3-66] [REFERRED TO]
M M DINESH VS. UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY [LAWS(MAD)-2006-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
T. N. ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. K. S. V. COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2005-7-236] [REFERRED TO]
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. K S V COTTON MILLS PRIVATE LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2005-7-93] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SAHID VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2010-9-32] [REFERRED TO]
RAMVILAS BAJAJ VS. ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2007-4-12] [REFERRED TO]
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT PRADESH PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT HYDERABAD VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
SHANTI KIRAN INDIA PVT LTD VS. COMMISSIONER TRADE & TAX DEPTT [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-52] [REFERRED TO]
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2006-5-187] [REFERRED TO]
PROGRESSIVE CAREER ACADEMY PVT LTD VS. FIIT JEE LTD [LAWS(DLH)-2011-5-66] [REFERRED TO]
U P HOUSING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD THUR HOUSING COMMISSIONER VS. SURESH CHANDRA & 2 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-96] [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM AYURVEDIC DOCTORS SERVICE ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2023-6-68] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF CITY OF AMRAVATI VS. VEDANT SECURITY SERVICES [LAWS(BOM)-2005-6-67] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD MAITRI VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2005-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA VS. IRB. AHMEDABAD VADODRA SUPER EXPRESS TOLLWAYS PVT. LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2022-7-95] [REFERRED TO]
ALL HIMACHAL MICRO HYDEL (100 KW) NGOS AND SOCIETIES ASSOCIATION THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT SH VARINDER THAKUR VS. STATE OF H P THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY SOURCES-CUM-SECRETARY POWER, GOVERNMENT OF H P AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-11-235] [REFERRED TO]
NARATTAM BISWAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-3-87] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHANT T KARWARKAR VS. MORMUGAO PORT TRUST [LAWS(BOM)-2006-3-114] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. MALIK SULTANA [LAWS(APH)-2012-7-106] [REFERRED TO]
A. MUTHYALA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. [LAWS(APH)-2018-2-56] [REFERRED TO]
NIHOTO SHOHE VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2013-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
AUGUSTINE M. YANTHAN VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2019-5-132] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH PRASAD VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-2-174] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA RAM AND ORS. VS. ADDL. COMMISSIONER, FAIZABAD DIVISION AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-449] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. QUAZI ALI AHMED [LAWS(ORI)-2017-10-99] [REFERRED TO]
RIZWAN AHMAD AZAD VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR DAS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2009-8-50] [REFERRED TO]
TRIMURTI CONSTRUCTION VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2006-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LTD VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2003-9-50] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JHARKHAND VS. GOVIND SINGH [LAWS(SC)-2004-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
K MADHAVA VS. PATHUMABI [LAWS(KER)-2005-6-48] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF J & K VS. KRISHAN LAL [LAWS(J&K)-1998-12-52] [REFERRED]
STATE OF MANIPUR VS. IRUNGBAM SHYAM SINGH [LAWS(MANIP)-2018-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
KAM-AVIDA ENVIRO ENGINEERING PVT LTD VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REWA AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-7-129] [REFERRED TO]
SUPER CASSETTES INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. CHINTAMANI RAO [LAWS(DLH)-2011-11-214] [REFERRED TO]
AHMED EHTESHAM KAWKAB VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2009-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
RAMVILAS BAJAJ VS. ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(APH)-2007-4-46] [REFERRED TO]
ISRO DRIVERS ASSOCIATION VS. GOVT OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2008-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ASHOK KUMAR DIXIT [LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-180] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARESH SINGH VS. U.P. STATE SOCIAL WELFARE [LAWS(ALL)-2017-7-52] [REFERRED TO]
DR. PUNEET KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA THROU SECY. MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-4-30] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMP. LTD. VS. RAM KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2014-12-121] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUNATH RAI BAREJA VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [LAWS(SC)-2006-12-72] [REFERRED TO]
MONNET ISPAT AND ENERGY LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2012-7-59] [REFERRED TO]
Arun Nigavekar VS. R Natarajan [LAWS(MAD)-2005-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV MANGAL VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION)LUCKNOW DIVISION AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2016-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA VS. P RAMA KRISHNA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-9-370] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA PRASAD SUKLA VS. DIPAK ADAK [LAWS(CAL)-2005-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
REGISTRAR, INDIAN COUNCIL OF ARBITRATION VS. K.S.SIDHU [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-45] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-51] [REFERRED TO]
JYOTISH CHANDRA PATHAK VS. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. [LAWS(GAU)-2005-8-82] [REFERRED TO]
LOKESH GUPTA VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2007-3-29] [REFERRED TO]
MARITIME INSTITUTE ASSOCIATION VS. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF SHIPPING [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-114] [REFERRED TO]
BALASUBRAMANIAN THEATRE AND ORS. VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES (REVISION PETITION), EZHILAGAM, CHENNAI AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2010-2-719] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT BHOGILAL PATEL VS. LEITZ TOOLING SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE [LAWS(BOM)-2019-6-345] [REFERRED TO]
MANUBHAI HARGOVANBHAI JOSHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD WASUDEORAO KALMEGH VS. LEENA SHARAD KALMEGH [LAWS(BOM)-2004-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
PRAFULKUMAR LAXMANRAO SUSKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-7-131] [REFERRED TO]
MILIND CHAUDHARY VS. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY [LAWS(KAR)-2014-9-314] [REFERRED TO]
NAMISHA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-1-348] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARANA PARTAP CHARITABLE TRUST VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. JISHA I. [LAWS(KER)-2020-11-340] [REFERRED TO]
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA VS. SATISH [LAWS(SC)-2021-11-38] [REFERRED TO]
M V KASTURI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2008-4-18] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY SHANKAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN.SECY.,DEPTT. OF APPOINTMENT & ANR. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH CHIEF SECY. LKO. & ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2017-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH VS. KHUSHALRAO [LAWS(BOM)-2023-12-89] [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR A P HIGH COURT VS. NESE JILAKARA SREERAMULU [LAWS(APH)-2000-6-25] [REFERRED TO]
RAJADHANI RYTHU PARIRAKSHANA SAMITHI, VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2022-3-24] [REFERRED TO]
G RAJABABU VS. GOVERNMENT OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2007-3-57] [REFERRED TO]
V NARASIMHA RAO VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE DEPARTMENT [LAWS(APH)-2012-1-128] [REFERRED TO]
ALL ASSAM HEADS OF DEPARTMENT MINISTERIAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2014-6-58] [REFERRED TO]
H M CAIRE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2006-9-49] [REFERRED TO]
L BIAKCHHUNGA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2005-8-64] [REFERRED TO]
BIPUL BORA VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2024-5-201] [REFERRED TO]
ADAMJI LOOKMANJI AND CO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-9-45] [REFERRED TO]
FEDERAL BANK LIMITED VS. JOHN THOMAS [LAWS(KER)-2005-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
PINKI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
BHUPAL GURUNG AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF SIKKIM AND ORS. [LAWS(SIK)-2015-6-15] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLA NETI (DEAD) VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [LAWS(SC)-2022-12-25] [REFERRED TO]
DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL VS. THE CHIEF MINISTER & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2021-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SAXENA VS. SMT. ARCHANA SAXENA & 6 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-261] [REFERRED TO]
NISHIKANT SUKERKAR VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-7-176] [REFERRED TO]
CH. LALNUNCHAMA, SDO VS. STATE OF MIZORAM AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2007-6-58] [REFERRED TO]
MANDADI SATYANARAYANA REDDY VS. ANDHRA PRADESH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY [LAWS(APH)-2009-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
AKBARUDDIN OWAISI VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS [LAWS(APH)-2013-7-163] [REFERRED]
JAGADESAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-266] [REFERRED TO]
B M MUNIAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2010-1-8] [REFERRED TO]
GREATSHIP (INDIA) LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-4-135] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA BHUSHAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-6-41] [REFERRED TO]
BINDHYACHAL RAI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2008-2-25] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Appellant's prayer for issuing a writ of mandamus to the State of Rajasthan to pay compensation on cessation of functioning as Chairman of the abolished Rajasthan Taxation and Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') having been turned down by learned single Judge and Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, this appeal has been preferred. As the core question involved is pristinely legal, it is unnecessary to enter into the factual aspects in detail.
(2.)Factual panorama in a nutshell is as follows :
Appellant was appointed as Judicial Member of the Tribunal in terms of notification dated 16-9-1995 issued by the Finance Department (Taxation Division) of the Government of Rajasthan. Appointment of the appellant was made by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Taxes and Tribunal Act, 1995 (in short 'the Act'). By the notification dated 16-9-1995 referred to above. Chairman and the technical member were also appointed. Subsequently, he was appointed to discharge functions of Chairman of the Tribunal till appointment of regular Chairman. This contingency arose on the previous Chairman attaining the age of 65 years. State Government vide notification dated 27-2-1999 issued an Ordinance No. 1/1999 stayed The Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal (Repeal) Ordinance, 1999 (in short 'the Ordinance'). The same became operative w.e.f. the date of notification i.e. 27-2-1999. By the above Ordinance under Section 5 matters and proceedings pending before Tribunal on the date of commencement of the Ordinance stood automatically transferred to the High Court for disposal. As a consequence of Tribunal being abolished, continuance of appellant as Chairman automatically came to an end. Appellant claimed compensation of Rs. 5,35,648/- with interest @ 15% per annum by filing a writ petition on the ground that his tenure appointment was to continue up to 18-9-2000. Since there was a premature termination of the tenure appointment, claim of compensation for the balance period from the date of termination of the appointment till 18-9-2000 (which according to him was the last date of the period of tenure appointment) was made. The writ application was filed before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench. The stand of the appellant before the learned single Judge was that there was a Cabinet decision taken to release salary to the appellant for the balance period which was to be paid. As the tenure of the appellant could not have been curtailed, he was entitled to compensation. By judgment dated 27-9-1999 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4379 of 1999 the writ petition was dismissed by learned single Judge. It was noted that the validity of the Ordinance was not challenged. Since the Tribunal itself was abolished and all cases pending before it have been transferred to the High Court, no interference was called for. It was noted that the exact amount of compensation can only be declared by a competent Court after taking evidence of the parties. So far as implementation of the Cabinet decision is concerned, it was noted that the same was a matter of discretion of the Government and it was open to the appellant to make a representation to the concerned authorities. It was not open to the High Court to enforce the Cabinet decision. The matter was carried in appeal before the Division Bench which dismissed the same holding that the learned single Judge has pronounced a well-reasoned judgment and no interference is called for.

(3.)Learned counsel for the appellant primarily took three stands in support of the appeal. Firstly, it was submitted that the decision of the Cabinet was enforceable. In the meeting of the Cabinet four decisions were taken. They related to : (1) Promulgation of Ordinance, (2) repatriation of the Technical Member to his parent department, (3) absorption of the members of the staff and (4) payment of compensation to the appellant. While the first three decisions were implemented; only the last one relating to payment of compensation was not implemented. The stand taken by the State Government cannot partake the character of Government order under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution') is not tenable. Secondly, Clause (2) of Article 310 of the Constitution deals with payment of compensation on premature cessation of a tenure appointment on the basis of contract to that effect. Even though there was no contractual prescription for payment of compensation, that has to be taken as inbuilt requirement in the spirit of Clause (2) of Article 310. There has to be interpretation of the provisions for giving effect to constitutional mandates. The decision taken by the Cabinet was in line with the said provision and, therefore, the High Court was not justified in refusing the grant of compensation. Finally, since there has been violation of the legitimate expectation of the appellant to continue till the end of tenure period, by application of the principle of legitimate expectation the State Government was bound to pay compensation irrespective of whether there was any Cabinet decision earlier or not and that would not take any difference. Section 4(b) of the Ordinance also has relevance in that context. Any obligation or liability accrued or incurred under the Act repealed are not be affected by the repeal.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.