Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. State of Madras

.....were wholly supervisory and advisory in nature; the functions described in cl. (f) were analogous to these and could only be supervisory or advisory. the commission had no administrative functions or powers of management or powers of interference in the internal management of registered association which were vested in the association. the power conferred upon the commission was not conferred "under the act". the words did not include a rule or a bye-law, and applied only to an assignment made in the exercise of an express power conferred under the act. the central government had no power tinder s. 12 to make a bye,law assigning any function to the commission. union of india v. madan gopal kabra (1954) s.c.r. 541, modi food products ltd. v. commissioner of sale's tax, u.p., a. i.r. 1956 all. 35, strawboard manufacturing co. ltd. v. gupta hill workers' union, (1953) s.c.r. 439, india sugar & belineries ltd. v. state of mysore, a.i.r. 1960 mys. 326, c.w. motor service (p) ltd. v. state of kerala, a.i.r. 1959 kerala 347, howell v. falmouth boat construction co. ltd. (1951) a. c. 837; the western india theatres ltd. v. municipal crporation of the city of poona, (1959) supp. 2 s.c.r. 71 and hubli electricity co. ltd. v. province of bombay ( 1948) 76 i.a. 57, referred to.   - 2. the preliminary objection is well founded in view of the decisions of this court in sohan lal naraindas v.koshal j.1. a preliminary objection has been raised by mr. rangam to the effect that the certificate granted by the court under sub-clauses (a) and (c) of clause (1) of article 133 of the constitution of india, as it then stood, does not conform to legal requirements inasmuch as-(a) it does not specify the substantial question of law which the high court states require determination; and(b) no reasons in support of the issuance of the certificate appear therein.2. the preliminary objection is well founded in view of the decisions of this court in sohan lal naraindas v. laxmidas raghunath gadit : [1971]3scr319 and in sardar baliadur s. indra singh trust v. commissioner of income tax, bengal : [1971]82itr561(sc) .3. faced with this situation mr. lalit wanted us to treat the appeal as one by special leave and prayed that such leave be granted now after condoning the delay. that would have been certainly a reasonable course to follow if it was made out that a substantial question of law really requires determination. we have gone through the impugned judgment and find that no such question is involved at all. we, therefore, refuse special leave, revoke the certificate granted by the high court and dismiss the appeal but with no order as to costs.