The intention seems to be to give an opportunity to the State Legislature to express its views within the time allowed; if the State Legislature fails to avail itself of that opportunity, such failure does not invalidate the introduction of the Bill. The petitioner applied for renewal of permission for the academic year 2015-16 pursuant to which the assessors from the MCI conducted an inspection on 12th and 13th December, 2014 and submitted a report dated 15.

On August 2, 1940, the assignee-decree-holder filed another execution petition, E. 226 of the Constitu- tion to issue a writ of certiorari in order to quash an error of fact, even though it may be apparent on the face of the record. One is that what is spoken about is raw material which is subjected to several processes after which a final manufactured product emerges and two that the test of integral connection of a particular process with the ultimate production of goods that but for such process manufacture of goods would become impossible or commercially inexpedient was applied in the context of a process being in relation to manufacture.

Any error of Law firms in Supreme Cour of Indiat or fact which it can correct as a court of appeal or revision cannot be a ground for the exercise of its power under that Article. Nor is there anything in the proviso to indicate that Parliament must accept or act upon the views of the State Legislature. The Ordinance was riot discriminative and did not violate Art. 243 of 1940, and it was struck off on September 30, 1940. The Courts ultimate holding was that the use of diesel pump sets to fill pans with brine is an activity which occurred with the aid of power and is in relation to manufacture.

On January 7, 1939, Venkatachalam Chettiar was ,,adjudicated insolvent on the ground that the assignment of the said decree by him in favour of his mother, Meenakshi Achi, was an act of insolvency, whereupon his properties vested in the first respondent, the Official Receiver, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. If, however, the period specified or extended expires and no views of the State Legislature are received, the second condition laid down in the proviso is fulfilled in spite of the fact that the views of the State Legislature have not been expressed.

It was in that context that this Court held that where any particular process is so integrally connected with the ultimate production of goods that but for that process, the manufacture of such goods would be impossible or commercial inexpedient. 2014 in which no deficiencies were alleged to have been pointed out. Besides, if the Ordinance did not make any classification of persons but only created an offence and provided stringent procedure and punishment then there was no discrimination at all as everybody who committed the offence was subjected to the same procedure.

The period within which the State Legislature must express its views has to be specified by the President; but the President may extend the period so specified. In The Official Liquidator v. If, therefore, any one of several processes in relation to manufacture is carried on with the aid of power, the exemption under the notification would not apply. Two things need to be noticed here. 628 On September 27, 1937, a settlement was entered into between the assignee-decree-holder and the judgment debtors and the said 'execution petition was closed.

The High Court has no power under Art. [14] this Court summed up the legal position thus : A long line of decisions of this Court starting with Sardar Govind Rao and Ors. The petitioner institute was said to have been granted permission for admitting 150 students in the MBBS course for the academic year 2013-14 and permission was renewed for the academic year 2014-15. Thus, the proviso lays down two conditions: one is that no Bill shall be introduced except on the recommendation of the President, and the second condition is that where the proposal contained in the Bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the States, the Bill has to be referred by the President to the Legislature of the State for expressing its views thereon.

It can do so only where the error is one of law and that is apparent on the face of the record. It is clear that the said judgment does not deal with manufacture alone. In view of the circumstances existing in the State, " enemy agents " and other persons aiding the I, enemy " to whom the Ordinance applied formed a reasonable classification which was founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguished such persons from others and the differentia had a rational relation to the object of the Ordinance which was to check subversion of the Government.

14 Of the Constitution. On January 26, 1942, the Official Receiver filed I. State of Madhya Pradesh[13] have followed the above line of reasoning and authoritatively held that the use of the word ˜may or ˜shall by themselves do not necessarily suggest that one is directory and the other mandatory, but, the context in which the said expressions have been used as also the scheme and the purpose underlying the legislation will determine whether the legislative intent really was to simply confer the power or such conferment was accompanied by the duty to exercise the same.

It deals with various processes carried on without the aid of power in relation to manufacture. That is why it held that the process of manufacture of common salt from brine in salt pans is an integrated one whose operations are so inter-related that without any one of these operations the manufacturing process could not be completed. While construing the somewhat pari materia expressions appearing in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 regard must be had to the provisions of Entries 53 and 54 of List I and Entry 22 of List II of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution to understand the exclusion of mineral oils from the definition of minerals in Section 3(a) of the 1957 Act.