- Ss. 5, 6, 9, 12, 16, 17 — Reveal that all powers in respect of appointments of servants, consultants etc. vested with the Authority — However, in absence of constitution of Board, the powers could be exercised by the Chairman as well with certain conditions and in case of urgency even in presence of the Board the Chairman could exercise certain powers which also included the appointments of certain servants and consultants — But the Chairman had to inform the Authority of aforesaid appointments without any delay — These powers were exercised till the Act was amended on 12. 7. 2001 — Before amendment and in absence of Constitution of the Authority a Board or in case of urgency the Chairman could make appointments of servants, experts, consultants etc. but after amendment the powers of Authority and Chairman were restricted — Held: Before the amendment the Authority or the Chairman were competent to create posts and also to make appointments in accordance with law — The Authority or Board previously had the powers to create the posts but the same were taken away through amendment — Held further: The respondents were appointed before the incorporation of amended provision in the Act in the year 1997 and 1999 — There is little force in the argument that the appointments were illegal and constitutional petition could not be filed. Chairman Pearl Development authority v. Tariq Inqalabi & 7 others 2005 SCR 186 (A)
- —Section 4—Law Department manual, 1984—application of— PDA being a corporate body having perpetual succession and a common seal, is a legal person having legal right to sue and be sued— provisions of Law Department Manual are not attracted in presence of special law—in relation to litigation by PDA, the sanction by Govt. is not required for filing or defending any case in the Courts. Ilyas Jandalvi & others v. P.D.A & others 2022 SCR 812 (B) 2015 SCR 882 rel.
error: Content is protected !!