A simple but crucial observation by the Apex Court.
From Para 18,
18. We have difficulty to accept the said contention for more than one reason. If the rule-making authority had intended it to be so they would have effortlessly used the words “outside local limits specified in the licence” in the proviso because the same words have been used in sub- rule (1). As the proviso gives powers to the Excise Commissioner to order removal of a shop to a place “outside the limits specified in this sub- rule” it can only refer to the limits specified in that sub-rule and not elsewhere. It must be noted in this context that sub-rule (2) specifies certain limits such as “within 400 metres” (for toddy shops) and “within 200 metres” (for FL 1 shops) from certain institutions mentioned therein. It is with reference to those limits which are specified in sub-rule (2) that the proviso confers power on the Excise Commissioner to pass order for removal.
Casemine Version:
Citations : [2000 AIR SC 3674], [2000 SCC 7 552], [2000 SUPREME 7 105], [2000 JT SUPP 1 487], [2000 AIRSC 3266], [2000 SCALE 6 674], [2000 ECC 72 7], [2000 KLT SC 3 820], [2000 SUPP SCR 3 616], [2000 AIR SCW 3674], [2000 SUPPSCR 3 616]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1919476/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad6fe4b014971141169c
Post Views: 78
Shades of Knife
Disclaimer:
The materials provided herein are solely for information purposes. No attorney-client relationship is created when you access or use the site or the materials. The information presented on this site does not constitute legal or professional advice and should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for legal advice from an attorney licensed in your state.
Judgments curated, reproduced from sci.gov.in, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other similar Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in, dcourts.gov.in or any other Government websites such as Gazettes and repositories of Government Orders and Commented in accordance with Section 52(1)(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) and any other applicable public disclosure laws/provisions in India and in various other countries.
I neither have control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in entire form, nor I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
Read more gyan here.
Though, I can mask/redact content (like names of parties from cause title) from the Judgments posted on my site, on request for any parties to a case, even though, I am not legally obligated to do so, except for express direction from a Competent Court.
Om Shanthi !!!
Oh, by the way, my competent Legal team delivers time-bound legal reliefs to victims of false family and matrimonial cases at
We are on social media too.
Just google for: Anagha Legal Reliefs
