PARAS Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:

(2.) The question would be as to whether under sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Act an individual can make a reference and the authority concerned is obliged to decide the same and writ of mandamus can be issued on such application directing the D.D.C. to decide such application.

(3.) It is well-settled that where a Statute requires to do certain thing in a particular method, then that thing must be done in that very method and other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid legal proposition is based on a legal maxim "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius", meaning thereby that "if a Statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that very manner and other manner and procedure is ordinarily not permissible'. (Vide Taylor v. Taylor,1876 1 ChD 426; Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, 1936 AIR(PC) 253 Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1961 AIR(SC) 1527 Haresh Dayaram Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2000 6 SCC 179 Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka etc. etc., 2001 4 SCC 9; Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others, 2002 1 SCC 633.