There is a conflict of decisions between the Allahabad and the Nagpur High Courts on the construction of s. Sub-Section (4) enables the Board to decide on the period of exclusivity to lay, build, operate or expand a city or local natural gas distribution network for such number of years. All those cases were heard together, and the High Court, by its judgment dated May 22, 1956, quashed the orders passed by the first respondent, chiefly on the ground that the Appellate Authority had been illegally constituted.
For the purposes of this section, the Board shall be guided by the objectives of promoting competition among entities, avoiding in fructuous investment, maintaining or increasing supplies or for securing equitable distribution or ensuring adequate availability of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas throughout the country and follow such principles as the Board may, by regulations, determine in carrying out its functions under this section.
The appellants as members of the partnership aforesaid, submitted a tender in the prescribed form. The other competitors for the settlement of the said shop being dissatisfied with the orders of the first respondent, moved the Assam High, Court and challenged the validity of the settlement made in the first appellant’s favour. In accordance with the rules framed under the Act, tenders were invited by the Deputy Commissioner of Sibsagar, for the settlement of Jorhat country spirit shop for the financial year 1957-58, in December, 1956.
It will be necessary, in the course of this judgment, to make several references to that decision which, for the sake of brevity, we shall call the ruling of this Court’. Robinson (1) considered the scope of the definition of the word ” worker ” in the Factories Act. The judgment of this Court is reported in the case of The State of Assam v. Similar writ cases challenging orders of settlement by the first respondent as the Excise Appellate Authority, had been instituted in the High Court.
The result of the ruling of this Court, was that the determination by the Assam High Court that the orders passed by the first respondent, were void, was set aside, and the settlement made by that Authority, consequently, stood restored. The matter was brought by way of special leave to this Court, and was heard by the Constitution Bench which, by its judgment dated January 31, 1957, decided that the constitution of the Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals as the ultimate appellate Authority under the Act, was not unconstitutional.
This is evident from the circular dated 28. On click the up coming article (just click the following post) a reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear as day that the Board has been conferred with the power to declare an existing pipeline for transportation of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas or an existing city or local natural gas distribution network as a common carrier or contract carrier and regulate or allow access to such pipeline or network.
2011 issued by the Director General of Shipping, which is referred to above and is being strongly relied upon by the prosecution. Gill’s case(3) and Neogy’s case (2) dealt with an offence of bribery under s. The Government of India has recognized the fact that there are private maritime security companies that provide security for merchant vessels while they traverse through pirate infested locations. But in the meantime, as the orders of the first respondent stood quashed as a result of the judgment of the High Court, the direction of the Excise Commissioner that the shop in question be resettled, was carried out, and the settlement was made with the third respondent aforesaid as an individual.
Respondents 3 and 4, Dharmeshwar Kalita and Someswar Neog, respectively, also were amongst the tenderors. The Board has been authorised, after following due procedure as specified by Regulations under Section 19 and under sub-Sections (1) and (2) by notification to declare a pipeline or city or local natural gas distribution network as a common carrier or contract carrier and do certain acts. 106 of the Assam Excise Manual, 1946).
Sub-Section (2) stipulates affording of opportunity of hearing go to website the pipeline or network for fixing terms and conditions subject to which pipeline or network be declared as common carrier or contract carrier. The Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals,, Assam, and the Commissioner of Excise, Assam, are the first and the second respondents in this case It is necessary to state at this stage that in respect of the financial year 1956-57, the shop in 1243 question was ordered by the first respondent as the Excise Appellate Authority to be settled with the first appellant Nagendra Nath as an individual, setting aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the Excise Commissioner.
The past decade has witnessed a sharp increase in acts of piracy on the high seas off the coast of Somalia and even in the vicinity of the Minicoy islands forming part of the Lakshadweep archipelago. if his act is such as to lie within the scope of Is official duty. 115 “A public servant can only be said to act or to purport to act in the discharge of his official duty. A Divisional Bench of the 1352 Nagpur High Court in Provincial Government, Central Provinces and Berar v. Sub-Section (1) prescribes for giving wide publicity of the Boards intention.
He continued in possession of the shop until February 26, 1957, on which date, the first appellant was put in possession as a result of the ruling (1) [1957] S. The test may well be whether mouse click the up coming webpage; how you can help, public servant, if challenged, can reasonably claim that, what he does, he does in virtue of his office. The objectives by which the Board is to be guided are promoting competition among entities, avoiding infructuous investment, maintaining or increasing supplies or securing equitable distribution or ensuring adequate availability of petroleum, etc.
” The same test was repeated in Meads’ case (1) and in Phenindra Chandra Neogy v.