Assented to by tt,e !;'resident or. 23-0"1-1982 and published rn Brha; Gazette (extord . ) dated 25-1-1982 . — BIHAR ACT 40 or " 1982]1

Assented to by tt,e !;'resident or. 23-0"1-1982 and published rn Brha; Gazette (extord . ) dated 25-1-1982 .

1. Assented to by tt,e !;'resident or. 23-0"1-1982 and published rn Brha; Gazette (extord . ) dated 25-1-1982 . • Pralmsh Amichend Shah vs . State of Gujrat, AIR 1986 SC 468: ( " 1986) 581. sec The scope and authority or a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily 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 nonoostente 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 orovisons of the earlier Act, the newly introduced Act will provaii . Md. d. 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 consequence 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 obligation 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 notice 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) • 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 , 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 164. law A legislative Act will not be held to be uli,a vires for want ol' valid expm guidance given in that regard , if there are any inbuilt safeguards therelor in i Act itself . Builders Association ot India vs. State of Bihar, 1992 ("I) PLJR I {~ Practice adopted ;n the past cannot override Zhe statute and staiutory re<.: tations . B . RS.T.E.vs. State of Biner, 1993 (1) PLJR 352. Courts must endeavour to harmonise different provisions of Hie same , c and where two interpretations arc equally possible, prefer an intcrpretaiion whi

Section 1