9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1893X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D THAT:- In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS. VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA [ 1978 (10) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT ], which has been reiterated by subsequent decisions, the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners does not merit any acceptance. Petition dismissed. - W.M.P. Nos. 110, 111, 117, 348, 349, 722, 729, 1405, 1406, 3368, 3369, 3371, 3378, 3380, 3381, 4224, 4226, 4228, 4274, 4275, 4277, 4279, 4281, 4283, 4286, 4287, 4291, 4342, 4346, 4349, 4943, 4946, 19129, 19131, 19293, 19296, 19298, 19442, 19458, 19459, 19739, 19771, 19851, 19931, 19935, 19938, 20021, 20085, 20155 of 2019 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese Writ Petitions were not argued in those cases and hence the same requires to be considered. 4. The contentions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners in this regard is that Section 19(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, requires that the notification issued under the exercise of that power would have to be placed before the Parliament and the Respondents have not placed any materials before this Court showing compliance in this regard, which would invalidate the impugned notifications on that ground itself. 5. In reply to the said contention, Learned Central Government Standing Counsel relies on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India:- (i) M/s. Atlas Cycle Industries L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any modification which either House of Parliament may in its wisdom think it necessary to provide. It does not even specify the period for which the order is to be laid before both Houses of Parliament nor does it provide any penalty for non-observance of or noncompliance with the direction as to the laying of the order before both Houses of Parliament. It would also be noticed that the requirement as to the laying of the order before both Houses of Parliament is not a condition precedent but subsequent to the making of the order. In other words, there is no prohibition to the making of the orders without the approval of both Houses of Parliament. In these circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the requirement as to laying contained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
