North Bihar Agency and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....under a. 42 and 47. if no standards have been laid down by the act for the corporation to afford it a guidance for the fixation of a rate, the fact that supervisory power is conferred upon the executive would not obviate that objection, for the government itself would have no guidance from the legislature as to the policy to be adopted in exercising the supervision. [541 e--g; 542 c-g; 545 a] it cannot be said that as a result of as. 115, 117 and 126 no taxes could be raised except such as were needed for the expenditure for which provision had been made in the budget and the rate of tax was, therefore, determined by the needs of the corporation. if the amount of money which a municipality needs for discharging its functions, affords any guidance, then the need of a state or the union ought to afford sufficient guidance to sustain the validity of any skeleton legislation. [545 a-c] the orissa ceramic industries ltd. v. executive officer, jharsuguda municipality a.l.r, 1963 orissa 171 disapproved. the quantum of power which a law could bestow upon an institution or body of its creation is determined, first, by the view of the legislature to what are necessary for achieving..........been relied upon and clearly they had no opportunity to meet it. it is very clear to us that the appellate authority was greatly influenced by the fact that:four such drugs (resembling the reputed drugs) were sent to the central drugs laboratory for test and were declared not to be standard quality. this indicates that the petitioner (appellants) deals in sub-standard and spurious quality of medicines and was playing with the life of the ailing community.this aspect of the matter was not mentioned in the show cause notice initially served on the appellant presumably because by that time the laboratory test report had not been received but as and when it was received it ought to have been furnished to the appellants before reliance was placed thereon for the purpose of confirming the cancellation order passed by the authority in the first instance. the appellate authority has also stated that non-production of godown licence etc. was violative of the drug rules. if, as explained by the appellants in their reply dated december 17, 1979, the said licence had been deposited in the office of the civil surgeon for renewal; how could it be produced? it shows non-application of mind by.....