Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
The scope and authority or a precedent should never be expanded unnec- essarily beyo ,d the needs of a given situation. ibid. The eitc;ct ot non-performance of G dutv imposed by a statute in the man ner prescrioed by the statute is not discovered by a simple answer to the ques tion wheiher he provision is mandatory or directory. BX. Srinivasan vs. State ot :;arnataka, (HJ87} I sec 658. Where two or more laws operate in the same field each containing a non- oostente clause stating that its provisions will override those of any o her law, the conuict has to be decided with reference to tt,e object and purpose or the :aw.cs. Where the newly enacted Act, is made nugatory on account ot the orovi- sons of the earlier Act, the newly introduced Act will provaii. Md. Yunus vs. Bibi Phenlcani, 1987 PLJR 65:1986 BBCJ 736. Iho restrictions contained in this Act with rsqard to erection of buildings are mandatory in character. A complete embargo is 'put on the authorities to grant sanction except in accordance with the "Master Plan". Doman Paswan vs. State of 9ihar, 1983 PUR 968. . . . Laws imposing taxes can amount lo restrictions on trade, commerce and hi- tar-State ;ntercqurse, if their imposition hampers the free flow o: trade and these are not what cart be termed lo be compensatory taxes or regulatory measure. West BP.ngal Hosiery Association vs. State of Bihar, 1988 PLJR (SC) 96. A proviso should not provide beyond the field covered by the substantive provision. t, the proviso does so, if must be read down. State of Punjab vs. r-<ailash Nmh, {1989) i sec .321. Provisions of Bihar Land Ceiling Ad are also applicable lo agricuaural land, situate within limits of a Municipality or a Notified Are2. CommiHee. Ram Chandra Singh vs. Sub-Divisionn! -Otticer, ·1989 PLJR. ·i 03. Blacltlisting .any person 'ln respect of business ventures has civil conse- quence for the future business ot 1he person concerned in any event. Even if the rules do not express. so, it is an elementary principle. o~ natural justice that µ:~rties adversely affected by any order should have the right of being heard and making representation against the order relating to blacklisting, Raghunath Thakw v. .srate of Blher, {1989) 1 sec 229. also see Erusian Equipment end Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of WB., (1975) I 'sec 70. · ?avemen'1 stalls creating conqestion and inconvenience can be removed fol- ;owing procedure prescribed by law. Municipal authorities have no !egal obliga- tion to pro~ide the pavement squatters alternative shops for their rehabilitation. Munic1;oal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gumam Kaur (1989) I sec ·101. The issuance ot the draft notification proposing to P.;cch2de certain areas from the territorial limits of the Municipal Corporation or Authority cannot eifeci the exclusion of those areas.' The issue. oi final notification to that effect is nec- essary te bring abou; their exclusion. Services Housing co-operative Society Ltd. VR. State of Bihar, i99'j ('i) PUR 2i. . If the procedure laid down in the Ad, laying down the mode of giving no- tice to the owner or occupier of the building· to [umish certain particulars of the building are not followed by the concerned Au1ho,iiy, ths .suosequent proceedinqs may be held to have become vitiated . Services Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. Stale of Blhsr, '1990 (2) PLJR 832 (FB) . • Bihar Regional Development Auihority Act, 1974 ,., l ~ J • If ·thP.re is a bonafide dispute 'regnrdirig the. tills of tno State Govcmmen, ·any property, the State Government r .. ~not tako an unilateral decision in its o favour that the disputed ,;xoper!y belongs to it. Suah a dispute must be w::fj~1 cated upon by the ordinary course of law. Sm!' Hekhe Singh vs. State of eih . ·1992 (2) PLJR 854. A _doclar i:on o1 law ,is binding on all concerned whether a person ts pa to that proceec ing or not. Bihar Chamber or Testing Stations vs. Steto of Biil 1993 {1) PLJ