Bidi, Bidi Leaves' and Tobacco Merchants Association versus the State of Bombay
How later courts have used it
- Implied or incidental powers cannot be used to impose new penalties or obligations not found in the statute.1,2
- Executive instructions cannot supplant statutory provisions; they may only supplement them.2,3,4
- Approval for a course of study continues until withdrawn by the statutory procedure, and yearly continuation cannot be required.5,6
- A statutory authority must strictly adhere to statutory rules, and any action beyond them is void.7
- The power to decide not to process an application may carry the incidental power to return it.8
- A legal right in the applicant is a condition precedent for mandamus; a non-statutory company owes no public duty.9
Read the full overviewShow less· 3 paragraphs
The judgements here mostly concern the limits of implied or incidental powers of statutory authorities, and several of them distinguish or apply the authority's holding that such powers cannot be used to vary statutory terms or impose new obligations. For instance, courts held that a statutory authority has no unfettered power and must adhere to statutory rules, and that incidental powers exist only to enforce the statute, not to overreach its main provisions. Likewise, a court found that a body could not impose a new penalty through inherent powers when the statute provided a specific mechanism. In contrast, other judgements upheld the exercise of implied powers where they were incidental to an express power, such as the power to return applications as incidental to a decision not to process them.7,1,8
Several judgements applied the authority to cases involving approval or recognition under professional statutes. Courts held that approval granted for a course of study attaches to the entire course and continues until withdrawn by the statutory procedure, and that executive instructions cannot require yearly continuation or impose additional charges, as the doctrine of implied power does not avail the authority. In the context of the NCTE, courts held that submission of an application does not create a vested right, and that the authority could return unprocessed applications as a valid policy decision, distinguishing the authority on the ground that the statute expressly empowered such action.2,3,5,4,6,10,11
Other judgements show the authority being used to support the validity of orders under the Minimum Wages Act, where the authority's principle that statutory powers must be exercised within the Act's framework was applied to uphold orders directing payment of wage differences. However, in a case concerning mandamus, the court distinguished the authority by holding that a non-statutory company owes no statutory or public duty enforceable by mandamus, and that a legal right in the applicant is a condition precedent. Some judgements also relied on the authority to support the proposition that statutory authorities can be judicially reviewed even where a statutory appeal exists, and that natural justice must be observed before imposing stricter conditions.12,13,9,14,15,16
Citing judgements
Challenging an appointment order where the Chief Justice assigned equal marks to seniority and merit and relaxed experience criteria, the writ petitioners argued this violated the 'seniority-cum-merit' principle.
DisposedDistinguishedOpenCollege of Applied Education and Health Sciences Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.
Writ Petition (Civil)DistinguishedTeacher-education institutes challenged a zero academic year imposed for failure to submit Performance Appraisal Reports. The court allowed the petitions and quashed the resolution and public notice as unauthorised and contrary to natural justice, leaving lawful action under Section 17 open.
Writ Petition (Civil)DistinguishedOpenPraga Tools Corporation v. C. A. Imanual & Ors., Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 612 of 1966, decided February 19, 1969, reported [1969] 3 S.C.R. 773 (J. M. Shelat and V. Bhargava, JJ.; judgment by Shelat, J.). Keywords: writ of mandamus; Article 226; maintainability of writ petition against a company;
AllowedDistinguishedOpenLal Bahadur Shastri Stc School & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.
Writ Petition (Civil)Relied onBatch writ petitions by new teacher education institutions challenged the NCTE's decision to return all pending B.Ed/D.El.Ed recognition applications without processing, taken to implement NEP 2020.
Writ Petition (Civil)Relied onOpenParmanand College of Education Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.
Writ Petition (Civil)Relied onThe Delhi High Court examined writ petitions challenging the National Council for Teacher Education's (NCTE) decision, in its 55th General Body Meeting, not to process applications from standalone teacher education institutions (TEIs).
Writ Petition (Civil)Relied onOpenRam Murti Education Institute & Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.
Writ Petition (Civil)AppliedBatch writ petitions by new teacher training institutions challenged the NCTE's decision to return their pending recognition applications without processing, citing NEP 2020's shift to multidisciplinary institutions.
Writ Petition (Civil)AppliedOpen
Show 6 more
Stone-quarry distance restrictions were challenged for lack of jurisdiction and notice. The court upheld the NGT's jurisdiction, including epistolary and suo motu powers, but set aside its order for breach of natural justice.
AllowedRelied onOpenStone-quarry distance restrictions were challenged for lack of jurisdiction and hearing. The court upheld the NGT's jurisdiction, including epistolary and suo motu powers, but set aside its order for breach of natural justice.
AllowedAppliedOpenStone-quarry distance restrictions were challenged for jurisdictional defects and denial of hearing. The court upheld the NGT's jurisdiction but set aside its order for breach of natural justice, directing fresh consideration after public notice.
AllowedAppliedOpenStricter stone-quarrying distance norms were challenged for want of jurisdiction and hearing. The court upheld the NGT's jurisdiction but set aside its order for breach of natural justice, directing fresh consideration after public notice.
AllowedAppliedOpenGeneral Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors. Vs Union of India through the Regional Labour Commissioner Central Ranchi and Anr.
Outcome: DismissedFollowedThe High Court of Jharkhand upheld the orders of the Regional Labour Commissioner, which directed the petitioner-BSNL to pay difference of wages and compensation to casual workers. The Court held that the Minimum Wages Act is valid and the Authority acted within its jurisdiction without any illegality or infirmity.
DismissedFollowedOpenGeneral Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Ors. Vs Union of India through the Regional Labour Commissioner Central Ranchi and Anr.
Outcome: DismissedRelied onHigh Court of Jharkhand dismissed three writ petitions challenging orders directing BSNL to pay minimum wage differences and compensation to casual workers engaged in telephone line maintenance under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, upholding the labor authority's findings.
DismissedRelied onOpen
Arb.O.P(COM.DIV.) 509/2023 (Madras HC, Comm.Div.): S.34 Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 challenge by Chennai Port Authority to award dt.14.06.2023 of Sole Arbitrator (F.M.
DismissedReferredOpenPharmacy colleges challenged a PCI circular requiring approved institutions to seek yearly continuation of approval and pay annual regulatory charges. The High Court held Section 12(1) approval covers the entire course, withdrawable only per Section 13, and quashed the offending clauses, declaring annual renewal…
Writ Petition (Civil)Relied onOpenPharmacy colleges challenged a PCI circular requiring already-approved institutions to apply yearly for continuation of approval and pay annual regulatory charges. The Court held Section 12 approval attaches to the entire course, not each year, and quashed the impugned clauses.
Writ Petition (Civil)AppliedOpenPharmacy colleges challenged PCI's circular requiring existing approved institutions to seek yearly continuation of approval under Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act and pay annual PERC. The Court held approval is to the entire course of study, not year-wise, quashed the impugned clauses and directed refund of deposits.
Writ Petition (Civil)Relied onOpenPharmacy colleges challenged the PCI's demand that institutions approved under Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act apply annually for continuation of approval and pay yearly PERC.
Writ Petition (Civil)Relied onOpenPharmacy colleges challenged a PCI circular requiring already-approved institutions to obtain yearly continuation of approval and pay annual PERC. The Delhi High Court held approval under Section 12(1) is to the entire course, not one year, quashed the impugned circular clauses, declared annual renewal impermissible,…
Writ Petition (Civil)Relied onOpen
Show 4 more
Pharmacy colleges challenged a PCI circular requiring already-approved institutions to obtain yearly continuation of approval under Section 12 of the Pharmacy Act and pay annual PERC. The Court held approval is granted to the entire course of study, not year-wise, and the demand was illegal.
Writ Petition (Civil)AppliedOpenPharmacy colleges challenged the PCI's demand that approved institutions apply yearly for continuation of approval and pay annual PERC. Holding approval under Section 12(1) is granted to the entire course, not one year, the Delhi High Court quashed the impugned circular clauses and the Approval Handbook requirements,…
Writ Petition (Civil)AppliedOpenPharmacy colleges challenged the PCI's circular requiring yearly continuation of Section 12 approvals and annual PERC payment. The Court held approval under Section 12 is for the entire course, not per year; quashed the impugned clauses and declared annual renewal demands unlawful.
Writ Petition (Civil)Relied onOpenSatyadev Institute of Management and Technology Vs Pharmacy Council of India
Writ Petition (Civil)Relied onA batch of writ petitions by pharmacy colleges challenged a PCI circular requiring already-approved institutions to obtain yearly continuation of Section 12 approval and pay annual PERC.
Writ Petition (Civil)Relied onOpen