Arts 185 (3) and 199 Rice Wright's Monopoly Purchase Scheme, using the same argument raised in front of the High Court and properly posing the question of whether the provision of the law was merely a directory or mandatory Department officials impose a fine on applicants. The petitioner's reduction of the penalty was challenged by the writ jurisdiction that the department's proceedings were not in accordance with the law, not entertaining that the relevant supplies were merely a directory and not mandatory. The authorities acted with open mind and due diligence, and any error in the first decision was later corrected by the same argument as was raised before the High Court and properly presented to it. The apex court's petition was dismissed as non-material
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
