Skip to main content

A Govt. Dept. must implement govt. policy

The Supreme Court last week stated that a government department must implement the industrial policy laid down by the government and should not devise its own policy, that too contrary to the Cabinet decision. The government must speak with one voice, the court stated in its judgment Llyod Electric & Engg Ltd vs State of Himachal Pradesh. "What is given by the right hand cannot be taken by the left hand," it remarked while allowing the appeal of the company holding that it was eligible for concessional rate in central sales tax. While the Cabinet had extended tax benefits up to 2013 for industrial units to attract investments, the department maintained that the company was not eligible for them as the notification was issued later and did not cover it. The high court upheld the interpretation of the department. Setting aside the judgment of the high court, the Supreme Court stated that the department cannot issue a notification contrary to the Cabinet decision on policy matters. Moreover, the department cannot deny the benefit because it delayed the notification consequent on the Cabinet decision. The company was eligible for the concessional rate at the rate of one per cent, and not two per cent on inter-state sales, the Supreme Court said.

Note: Therefore it can be said that departments notice being subject to Govt. notice, the Govt. notice/circular has precedence irrespective of the fact that the department has not issued a similar notice.

Articel referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/govt-must-pay-for-officers-negligence-115090600684_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...
Post a Comment
Read more