Bombay High Court
Vaishali D/O Atmaram Suryawanshi vs The State Of Maharashtra on 16 December, 2009
Author: Swatanter Kumar
Bench: Swatanter Kumar, A.M. Khanwilkar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7055 OF 2009
Vaishali D/o Atmaram Suryawanshi, )
Age: 30 years, Occ: Nil, )
R/o: C/o. Atmaram Mango Suryawanshi, )
Hirtma, 1-A, Auditor Colony, Pimprala, )
Jalgaon, Tq. & District Jalgaon. ).. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, )
Through its Secretary, )
Tribal Development Department, )
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. )
2. The Committee for Scrutiny and )
Verification of Tribe Claims, )
Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar. )
3. The President, )
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, )
Maharashtra State, Hazarimal Somani )
Marge, Mumbai - 400 001. ).. Respondents
--
Shri R.S. Shinde, advocate holding for Shri A.G. Talhar, advocate for the
Petitioner.
Shri R.P. Phatke, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Shri M.S. Deshmukh, advocate for Respondent No.2 (absent).
--
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 :::
2
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
A.M. KHANWILKAR, J
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 5TH DECEMBER, 2009
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 16TH DECEMBER, 2009.
JUDGMENT ( PER SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.)
Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service.
2. It is the claim of the Petitioner that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe category i.e. Tokare Koli. The caste certificate in favour of the father of the Petitioner was issued by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Chopada.
However, in the year 2001, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amalner Division Amalner, initially refused to issue caste certificate in favour of the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claim, Nashik Division, Nashik. The said appeal came to be rejected. Against the rejection of the said Appeal, a Writ Petition No.5915 of 2002 was filed in this Court, which came to be disposed of by an order dated 17th June, 2002.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 3In furtherance to the order of the Court, the Appeal of the Petitioner was allowed by the Appellate Authority and it directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to issue Caste Certificate in favour of the Petitioner and thereafter the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amalner issued caste certificate to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the college in which the Petitioner had taken admission submitted the Tribe Claim of the Petitioner for validity before Respondent No.2-Committee. Respondent No.2-Committee was requested to issue validity certificate but the Petitioner could not get validity certificate. However, in the meanwhile, the Petitioner completed her graduation and was searching for the service at various places, such as Bank examination, Educational Society's, etc. The college in which the Petitioner had taken admission had taken an undertaking from the Petitioner that if the Petitioner did not produce caste validity certificate within three months, her admission would stand cancelled. In these circumstances, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.6476 of 2005 seeking directions to Respondent No.2-Committee to decide her caste claim within stipulated period. Vide order dated 25th April, 2008, this Court allowed the said Writ Petition and directed Respondent No.2-Committee to decide the caste claim of the Petitioner within a period of two months. The said Order reads as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 4". Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. At the outset, we may record that this Court by its order dated 14.09.2005 had directed Respondent no.1- Scrutiny Committee to complete the process of verification of the caste claim of the petitioners within three months from the date of order. For the reasons which are disclosed in the Civil Application filed on behalf of Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee and which Civil Application has been allowed by us, the respondent no.1-scrutiny committee has explained as to why the process of verification of the caste claim of the petitioners could not completed within the period stipulated by this Court. Be that as it may, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ directing Respondent No.1-scrutiny committee to adjudicate the caste claim of the petitioners as belong to "Tokare Koli", scheduled tribe. The petitioners have also prayed that pending the process of adjudication of their caste claims, second respondent should not take any adverse action against the petitioners, including cancellation of the admission for failure of the petitioners to tender the caste validity certificates.
3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent no.1-Committee has stated before us that a copy of the report of the Vigilance Cell has been tendered to the petitioners. In the light of that, we direct the petitioners to appear before Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee at Nandurbar on 14th May, 2008. A further statement is made on behalf of Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee by Shri Deshmukh that the Respondent- Scrutiny Committee would pass appropriate orders in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 5 accordance with law in respect of adjudication of the tribe claims of the petitioners within a period of two months of 14th May, 2008. We accept the said statement as an undertaking to the Court.
4. We thus allow the petition and make rule absolute by directing the petitioners to appear before Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee at Nandurbar on 14th May, 2008 and directing Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioners within two months of 14th May, 2008. Pending process of adjudication of the tribe claim, we direct Respondent No. 2-College not to cancel the admission of the petitioners on the sole ground that the petitioners have not been able to tender Caste Validity Certificates. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicate above with no order as to costs."
3. Respondent No.2-Committee despite the orders of the Court did not decide the caste claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner claims that she was selected for the post of Clerk Typist (English) in General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, and was even selected for the employment in Class -III category in Co-operative Department in the office of Divisional Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Auditor), Aurangabad, in the Scheduled Tribe Category but she could not take any of the employments because of non availability of the caste validity certificate ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 6 due to the inaction on the part of the Respondent No.2-Committee and, therefore, she was compelled to file the present Petition.
4. It is in light of the above facts that we have to examine what relief it at all can be granted to the Petitioner. Respondent No.2 is a statutory committee constituted under the provisions of the Act. Thus, it not only discharges the public functions which are somewhat akin to quasi judicial functions but its statutory obligation is to deal with such matters and to provide relief to the aggrieved person and/or persons who have applied for validation of caste certificate/s. Certain aspects of such cases are well known and even the Court can take a judicial notice thereof that such certificates are required to be utilized basically for two purposes.
Firstly, for seeking admission to academic/professional courses and secondly, for seeking employment particularly in the Government Sector.
Both these purposes would stand defeated if timely disposal of application and time schedule expected of the Committee is not adhered to. In the present case, the Petitioner had approached all the authorities concerned including Respondent No.2 - Committee well within the time but was unable to obtain caste validity certificate before the cut-off dates or ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 7 extended time granted by the authorities in the establishment where the Petitioner was selected. The failure of the Petitioner to produce such validity certificate was not the result of any act attributable to the Petitioner but it was primarily for the reason that the authorities concerned including Respondent No.2-Committee failed to act expeditiously and in any case within a reasonable time. It is expected of the Committee to act within time and not to make people approach the Courts again and again for such simple relief and/or direction. In the present case, the Committee certainly failed to act expeditiously and within a reasonable time despite the directions of the Court.
5. Canons of Administration of Law requires such authorities to act and is expected to have a socio-economic outlook. Public functionaries should act in the exercise of power for the benefit of Society and its action should be free of arbitrariness and capriciousness which are likely to cause harm to the aggrieved person/persons.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, (1994)1 SCC 243, held as under: -
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 8"10. ...........An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities. That is provided by the rule of law. It acts as a check on arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. In Rookes v. Barnard, 1964 AC 1129 : (1964)1 All ER 367, 410, it was observed by Lord Devlin, 'the servants of the government are also the servants of the people and the use of their power must always be subordinate to their duty of service'. A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it. Compensation or damage as explained earlier may arise even when the officer discharges his duty honestly and bona fide. But when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behaviour then it loses its individual character and assumes social significance.
Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing against it................"
7. The Public bodies or public functionaries are expected to work for the benefit of the general public and while discharging their statutory and public duties, they are accountable to public as well as to the rule of law which governs them. In the case of Shri Mahender Kumar v. Land ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 9 Acquisition Collector, 2006(5)AD 420, the Bench of Delhi High Court while applying principle of public accountability and public good faith and actions of the public in good faith, held as under:-
"Both these adverse consequences can easily be avoided by the authorities concerned by timely and coordinated action. The authorities are required to have a more practical and pragmatic approach to provide solution to this persisting problem. Various files of the authorities which have been produced before us in number of cases do not reflect any better state of affairs but mostly a mere inaction on the part of the concerned officers/officials in the Government hierarchy. We have already stated that large number of writ petitions are being filed in this Court claiming the similar reliefs. In most of the cases, the respondents do not even dispute the claim of the petitioner based on awarded compensation. Let us examine the law in regard to public accountability for default of performance of statutory and public duties which are relatable to the powers vested in the administrative and executive authorities under the provisions of this Act. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of this court of the same date in the case of Sukhbir Singh Tyagi and others v. Lieutenant Governor and others, WP(C) 22895-927/2005 where the court held as under:-
4. Various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act impose a duty upon the authorities to act within a specified time. Consequences of violation of such duty normally would be spelled out in the statute itself, even if it is no so stated. Aggrieved party cannot be said to be without remedy. The duty imposed by the statute may also be actionable by the express terms of the statute or ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 10 on the principle that an action lies for any indictable wrong. There is clear distinction between the duty and the power. However, a duty may be implied from a power. The Courts may not look for or require a party to establish negligence as a fact because breach of statutory duty itself is a proof of negligence. The authorities enjoy considerable discretion under the provisions of the Act. Thus, it requires adherence to higher standards of care and ensuring that the public at large or a class of persons, subjected to their discretion are not exposed to undue delay and financial losses as a result of inaction of the authorities. The powers vested in the public officers under the provisions of the Act includes both statutory and administrative powers taking within its ambit the corresponding duty obligations to effectively carry out the object of the Act.
If the public officers or public bodies fail to perform any public duty with which they have been charged, an order of mandamus will lie to compel them to carry it out and in some circumstances even if the time to perform under the statute had not left. In accordance with this principle, writ of mandamus will issue to the Government Officials in their capacity as public officers exercising executive duties, which affect the rights of the private persons. Occasionally and now more often mandamus may also be sought to enforce the non-
statutory duties. The statutory duty must be performed without any reasonable delay. Delay in action, particularly grant of relief to which a private person is entitled to, would vest the affected party with further consequences while making the officer responsible for his latches. Action taken by persons holding public offices is to be inconformity with the basic rule of law and standard policies and must be free of arbitrariness. The Supreme Court in the case of Shivsagar Tiwari Vs. Union of India and Others (1996)6 SCC 558 even held a minister responsible personally for illegal allotments as exercise of power tantamount to misuse of power.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 115. Breach of duty is an actionable wrong. Rights of the authorities and their duties are co-related. Violation of one's right is the breach of other's duty. In some cases, the department may be called upon to examine the conduct of its various officers as the department would be responsible for their action/inaction. Breach of duty may not essentially result from wrong doing, which may arise from negligence, failing to act timely or even by breach of duty under the statute, the duty may be specifically envisaged in the language of the provision or it may arise by necessary interpretation applying the concept of reasonable conduct. The expansion of rights would lead to expansion of bonds of liability. They are co-related and inter-dependent. Expansion of one would result in widening result of other. Of course, they will have to be examined with reference to the needs and situations, which are contemplated under the law. Negligence or inaction have larger consequences and implies an obligation on the authorities vested with the powers to act with greater and higher standards of care. If there is a right under the law, there must be a remedy for its violation as law commands nothing vainly - Lex nil frustra jubet.
6. Another facet of statutory duty is to impose negative obligations on the State not to encroach upon the rights of the individual or to frustrate what is granted under law to the citizen. Declaration of rights would be meaningless unless there is effective machinery for enforcement of the rights. Remedy is the essence of a right. A right really become effective and meaningful when its enforceability is accepted by the procedure of law. The legality or illegality of a State action, particularly when they are acting in furtherance to the statutory powers vested in them, would be subject to judicial review, not in its narrowest sense. Wherever a cause is relatable to breach of statutory or implied duty of a public officer, the rule of law would essentially ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 12 provide for a remedy even if it is not so specifically spelled out in the provisions of the Act. Arbitrariness and unreasonableness being facets of Article 14 are available as grounds not only for questioning an administrative action but in certain cases may even invalidate subordinate legislation. Timely action is the essence of government functioning and unreasonable delay questions the very correctness of such orders. Wherever the records offer no explanation for prolonged unreasonable delay, the equity will tilt more in favour of the petitioners than uphold the action of the authorities to be correct, being done in the normal course of its business.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Books 2002(3) Supreme Court
Cases 7
Referred to : 2005(2) Supreme Court
Cases 317
1996(VI) Supreme Court
Cases 1390
"The Law of Torts" - 9th
Edition
by Ramaswamy Iyer.
`Law of Torts' - 12th
Edition
By Salmond & Heuston
Halsbury's Laws of
England - 4th Edition By Lord
Hailsham of St. Marylebone.
7. Concept of public accountability has been applied to the decision making process in the government by the courts for a considerable time. This concept takes in its ambit imposition of costs and its recovery from the officer concerned for their negligence or acts of prolonged, unexplained delays running into years. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Food Corporation of India 2004 (13) Supreme Court Cases 53, the Court directed as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 13"We are shocked as to the manner in which the State Government is filing petitions in this Court resulting not only in wasting the time of this Court and all others concerned but in total waste of public money. The impugned orders have been challenged after more than eight years with almost no explanation, as is evident from the paragraph reproduced above.
In this view,l while dismissing the applications seeking condonation of delay, we direct that enquiry be made forthwith by the State Government as to the person responsible for this state of affairs, recover from such person the costs involved in filing these petitions and submit the report to this Court within a period of four weeks."
8. Administrative or executive actions are subject matter of judicial review. Noticing the significance of scope of judicial review in this regard and bureaucracy accountability, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Subhash Singh AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1390 held as under-
"In our democracy governed by the rule of law, the judiciary has expressly been entrusted with the power of judicial review as sentinal in qui vive. Basically judicial review of administrative actions as also of legislation is exercised against the actions of the State. Since the State or public authorities act in exercise of their executive or legislative power, they are amenable to the judicial review.....
...The normal principle that the permanent bureaucracy is accountable to the political executive is subject to judicial review. The doctrine of "full faith and credit" applied to the acts done by the officers and presumptive evidence of regularity of official acts done or performed, is apposite in faithful discharge of duties to elongate public purpose and to be in accordance with the procedure prescribed. It is now settled legal position that the bureaucracy is also accountable for the acts done in accordance with the rules ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 14 when judicial review is called to be exercised by the Courts. The hierarchical responsibility for the decision is their in-
built discipline. But the Head of the Department/designated officer is ultimately responsible and accountable to the Court for the result of the action done or decision taken. Despite this, if there is any special circumstance absolving him of the accountability or if someone else is responsible for the action, he needs to bring them to the notice of the Court so that appropriate procedure is adopted and action taken. The controlling officer holds each of them responsible at the pain of disciplinary action. The object thereby is to ensure compliance of the rule of law........
...A member of the permanent executive, is enjoined to comply with the orders of the Court passed in exercise of the judicial review. When a Court issues certain directions to the executive authorities it is expected that the authorities would discharge their duties expeditiously as enjoined under the rules and as per the directions. If they do not discharge the duty, necessarily, they are required to give explanation to the Court as to the circumstances in which they could not comply with the direction issued by the Court or if there was any unavoidable delay, they should seek further time for compliance. When, neither of the steps have been taken by the officer in that regard the Court can impose the costs personally against him for non-compliance of the order.......
....It is known fact that in transaction of the Government business, none would own personal responsibility and decisions are leisurely taken at various levels. It is not uncommon that delay would be deliberately caused in filing appeal or revision by Government to confer advantage to the opposite litigant; more so when stakes involved are high or persons are well connected/influential or due to obvious considerations. The Courts, therefore, do not adopt strict standard of proof of every day's delay. The imposition of costs on officers for filing appeals causes public injustice and gives the manipulators an opportunity to compound the camouflage. Secondly, the imposition of costs personally ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 15 against the officers would desist to pursue genuine cases of public benefit or importance or of far-reaching effect on public administration or exchequer deflecting course of justice."
9. The principle of care, maintenance of higher caution, expeditious decision-making process in exercise of statutory powers, public accountability and transparency are also applicable to the various proceedings under the law of acquisition. Various provisions of the Act could be referred to demonstrate that the exercise of powers emanating from statutory provisions is coupled with public obligation, to protect the rights of the land owners.
10. The Land Acquisition Collector is expected to conduct a survey prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of the land. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 empowers the Officer to enter upon any property for the purposes of survey and other acts stated in that provision. The Legislature has even taken precautions to make a statutory provision for payment of compensation for any damage which may be done during completion of such duty imposed upon the Officer, under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act. In regard to deficiency of the amount so offered or tendered, the dispute could be referred to the Collector or the Chief Revenue Officer. After having issued declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the next effective step to be taken by the authorities is to issue notices to the interested persons under Section 9 of the Act. It is intended to convey to the public, the intention of the Government to take possession and calling upon them to make claims in regard to the lands acquired. The Collector would make an enquiry and then pronounce his award as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector is to take approval of the government before the award could be made enforceable. Section 11(a) was introduced by the Amending Act 68 of 1984 to require the authorities to make an award within 2 years from the date of publication of declaration.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 16The consequences of non-compliance were to the extent that entire acquisition proceedings shall lapse. The only explanation in providing the period of 2 years was the exclusion of the period during which orders of stay passed by the court were in operation. After pronouncing of the award under Section 11 of the Act, unless the case was covered under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, the Collector was to take possession of the lands under Section 16, and such lands would vest in the government, free from all encumbrances. After the award is made the Collector is required to give immediate notice of his award to the persons interested who were not personally present before him so that the compensation could be awarded to the rightful claimants. Then the award of the Collector in regard to apportionment, area value of the land and the interested persons attains finality in that field. The claimants have a right to claim compensation without prejudice to their rights and contentions by making reference petitions under Section 18 of the Act. From the stage of making of a reference, the matters are transferred from the administrative and executive authorities functioning under the provisions of the Act, for adjudication process to the courts.
11. The Land Acquisition Collector is expected to caution the authorities (beneficiaries for whose benefit the lands are acquired) that they should make the funds available for their disbursement to the rightful claimants. This now is the clear directive stated in Section 50 of the Act.
12. Under the provisions of the Act, a duty is cast upon the authorities to make payment of compensation determined to the rightful claimants expeditiously. The provisions of Section 9 indicate a preparatory step by the State authorities invoking the plea that the Government intends to acquire the lands as well as calling upon the claimants to claim compensation. The Collector would determine the fair market value of the acquired land and direct its payment/apportionment amongst the rightful claimants i.e. interested persons. The right of the persons to claim money ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 17 is, thus, instantly available to them upon making of the award except in cases where the compensation of the lands of the owners is taken under Section 17 (3) of the Act wherein they become entitled to 80% of the estimated compensation before taking possession of the land. The provisions of the Act even provide a safeguard to the citizen and obligation to the State that where estimated compensation cannot be paid because of contingencies stated in Section 31(2), they are required to deposit the same in terms of the Section 31. Under Section 19 while the Collector is making the reference he is required to provide information to the Court in writing, including the amounts which have been paid or deposited and all other amount for damages or compensation, which were tendered in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Section 23(1-A) requires authorities to pay, in addition to the market value as called in terms of Section 23, an amount @12% per annum on the market value for the period commencing from the date of notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Act to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land. In addition to this, 30% of the market value of the land is payable on account of compulsory nature of acquisition. Section 34 further postulates that the amount of compensation so determined and if not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereupon @9% per annum from the date of taking of possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited.
Further, for the period in excess of one year from the date of taking over possession, interest is payable @15% per annum for the compensation amount determined or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.
13. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act has an inbuilt check and balances and the legislative intent of providing just and fair market value to the owners of the lands and expeditiously is more than evident under various provisions of the Act. A dual purpose is sought to be achieved by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 18 providing even the periods within which the authorities are expected to discharge their duties and ensure disbursement of compensation to the claimants. In default thereof, certain further liabilities accrue against the department. Surely, the Act does not contemplate and rightly so that a claimant entitled to receive compensation is expected or it is even desirable for him to run in various departments of the Govt. or the authorities to receive his compensation, which may not be paid to him for years together. Certain benefits are available to the claimants for delay in acquisition proceedings commencing with under Section 4 and making of the award under Section 11, as the authorities are required to pay interest @12% per annum to the claimants for this period. The claimants are also protected to some extent against compulsive acquisition as well as from the date the possession is taken till entire payment of the awarded compensation is made to the claimants. But the Statute has a lacunae inasmuch as it gives no benefit much less an additional benefit to the claimants, whose lands are required for the entire period commencing from the date of making of the award till taking over of possession by the Department. No liability of any kind comes on the department despite any length of this period i.e. where the judicial pronouncements would abridge the gap and require the authorities to ponder over this aspect of the matter and not leave the claimants unbenefited or remedy less for this period. There are number of cases before the Court where the awards are made and for years compensation is not paid. In some of them, may be the department has some reasonable excuses but in most of them at least the records produced before the Court in those cases do not reflect so. Still in another set of cases, the land is acquired, award is made and possession thereof is not taken for years together and the period varies from 7 years to 30 years. Still in another set of cases the possession is taken and for years compensation is not paid and if it is paid, it is not paid in its entirety. There are large number of writs, which are coming up before the Court every day falling in either of these categories. This aspect has been discussed by the Court in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 19 some detail in another case being WP (C) No. 13308-12/2005, which is being disposed of by the judgment of the same date.
14. Inaction and action taken after inordinate delay by various functionaries working under the scheme of the Act results in seriously jeopardizing interest of claimants as well as the public money. In some cases, the claimants are not paid their dues entitling them for higher rate of interest and interest for unnecessarily prolonged period. This may be their gain but it certainly is to the disadvantage of the public exchequer and an avoidable financial loss. On the other hand, the claimants would suffer accrual of any benefits, if their properties are acquired, award is made and the possession is not taken for years together. This further leads to dual disfunctional results. The very purpose for which the land is acquired may stand frustrated because of long intervening period as a result of unauthorised construction or colonies coming up on the acquired land, and secondly it occasions in generating litigation which again is avoidable. Thus, timely action for completing acquisition proceedings and expeditious determination and disbursement of compensation to the claimants should be the Hallmark of all the functionaries doing public duties under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act.
15. In the case of ABL International Ltd. and another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. and Others (2004) 3 SCC 553, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"It is clear that when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, once the State or an instrumentality of the State is a party, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 20 reasonably to a contract which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution."?
"Unless the action challenged in the writ petition pertains to the discharge of a public function or public duty by an authority, the courts will not entertain a writ petition which does not involve the performance of the said public function or public duty."?
16. State actions causing loss are actionable under public law and this is as a result of innovation to a new tool with the court, which are the protectors of civil liberty of the citizens and would ensure protection against devastating results of State Action. The principles of public accountability and transparency in State action even in the cases of appointment, which essentially must not lack bonafide was enforced by the Supreme Court in the case of Centre for public interest litigation and another Vs. Union of India and another (2005) 8 SCC 202.
17. Adverting to the facts of the present case in the back drop of principle of public or statutory duty and accountability of public officers, we are constrained to say that authorities have not been able to place any justification on record for non payment of the awarded compensation to the petitioners. Non-disclosure of any sufficient reason obviously would hold them responsible for the consequences flowing from the default in discharge of their public and statutory obligations. The Notification under Section4 was issued on 27th January, 2003 while declaration under Section 6 was issued on 23rd January, 2004 i.e. after a lapse of nearly one year. The award was made by the Collector on 22nd August, 2005 being Award No.15/2005-06/DC(N-W) after a lapse of nearly 1 year and 8 months. The possession of the land was taken on or before 14th September, 2005 but the compensation of the petitioners have not been paid even till filing of the present writ petition. The petitioners had ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:51 ::: 21 filed their objections under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on 14th September, 2005 itself. In other words, the petitioners had filed application for payment of their compensation and their application for further enhancement in accordance with Section 18 of the Act but despite filing of such applications, copies of which have been filed on record, they have not been paid compensation till date. The respondents have not even deposited the said compensation before the Reference Court. There is no justification whatsoever on record as to why the compensation has not been paid for the last more than 8 months. Two important aspects of the matter, which create avoidable liabilities on the public exchequer are, who would be responsible for not acting within a reasonable time and furthermore, who would pay the interest in terms of Section 34 and even under Section 23 (1-A). Should this liability be fastened upon the common income-tax payer, who contributes towards the public exchequer or should it be the liability of the officers/officials, who are incharge of the acquisition proceedings and do not deal with the files for months together. Timely disbursement of compensation is the obligation of the authorities and no reason whatsoever either by filing a counter affidavit or by production of record has been shown as to why even after taking possession in September, 2005, the compensation has not been disbursed for 8 months. It is a matter, which should invite attention of all concerned.
The disputes mainly are interdependent or are resulting from inaction of the authorities. Reference in this regard can be made to Civil Writ Petition Nos. 933/88, 1161/88, 6372/06, 4739-43/06, 22895/05, 5663/05, 11206/05, 6609-48/06, 4070-73/06 and 22881/05. The petitioners had submitted the applications complete in all respects with affidavits etc. on 14.6.05 itself but no records have been produced before us to show that the petitioners were called upon to make up in deficiency if at all noticed by the respondents in fact that is not even so stated in the affidavits filed in this Court by the respondents. Once the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:52 ::: 22 petitioners had furnished the requisite documents and had submitted their applications there can be no justification whatsoever for delay in disbursement of the awarded compensation to them. Persistent and chronic nature of these problems is amply demonstrated by the fact that in Civil Writ No 1161/88 vide its order dated 5.5.05 the Court had passed directions requiring the respondents to look into various problems relating to acquisition proceedings before the authorities and to prepare guidelines. In Civil Writ No. 5463/99 Deep Jot Singh & Anr. vs. Union of India the Court in similar circumstances as of the present case had allowed the writ petition of the petitioners and imposed cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be recovered from the erring officers. Despite specific directions of the Court that the amount of cost which was to be paid at the first instance by the respondents was to be recovered from the salary of the erring officials in accordance with law. Despite a specific direction that the report should be submitted within three months, the respondents have filed no report and it had been left to the imagination whether the direction and orders of the Court have been implemented by the respondents in its true spirit and substance or not."
8. From the above enunciated principles, it is clear that the public functionaries and public bodies must act within the specified time provided in the provisions of law and in absence thereof within a reasonable time.
The concept of reasonable time is applicable to administrative action particularly when the determination in exercise of such power is likely to have effect on the rights and obligations of individuals. The citizens have a right to claim performance of public duties by the public functionaries ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:52 ::: 23 within a reasonable time so as to achieve the object for which such statutory or public functionaries are required to act. In the present case, Respondent No.2-Committee has been constituted only with an object of dealing with and deciding the matters in relation to validity/verification of the caste certificates. Once such a function is assigned to the Committee, it is expected to keep the object and such function in its mind. Therefore, it is expected of Respondent No.2-Committee to work for the welfare of the Applicants while ensuring that the delay in performance and discharge of their duties does not result in frustration or taking away the rights which would be available to the applicants. Undue delay in the normal circumstances has the effect of divesting an applicant's right of being considered for employment and admission to academic/professional courses. That certainly is not the intent of the law under which the Committee has been constituted.
9. We are concerned with the case where Respondent No.2- Committee has not only failed to act once, but has repeatedly failed to act within a reasonable time, much less expeditiously. Vide order dated 25th April, 2008, the Court had directed the Respondent No.2- Committee to decide tribal claim of the Petitioner within two months ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:52 ::: 24 from 14th May, 2008. Interim protection granted to the Petitioner was that the Petitioner's admission should not be cancelled on the sole ground that the Petitioner had not been able to tender caste validity certificates. Despite this specific direction where the Court had fixed the time, the Respondent No.2 - Committee had not only failed to decide caste validity claim of the Petitioner within the specified time but it even failed to seek extension from the Court in this regard. Not only this but it also failed to seek appropriate directions from the Court in this behalf.
Even after the expiry of time specified by the Court and reminders of the Petitioner it still failed to act and decide the question of caste claim/validity certificate of the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, she has lost two jobs as she could not furnish caste validity certificate either to Co-operative Department ( in Class-III category ) in the office of Divisional Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Auditor), Aurangabad, Division Aurangabad in the Scheduled Tribe Category as well as for the post of Clerk-Typist (English) in the General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The Petitioner claims to have also got employment in Respondent No.3 but again was unable to join the same for want of caste validity certificate.
10. Great disadvantage and harm has been caused to the Petitioner as a result of untimely action on the part of the Respondent-
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:52 ::: 25Committee and its office. Whatever be the reasons for delay, the Petitioner certainly cannot be blamed for the same. She has doubly suffered at the hands of the Respondent Committee, firstly, the Respondents did not act timely causing disadvantage to the Petitioner for losing her job and secondly she has been compelled to approach the Court again and again which could have been avoided, obviously, putting her to unnecessary expenses. The Committee must realise that it is expected to act timely and that it is answerable and accountable to the public as well as to the law under which it is constituted. The Respondent No.2-Committee has not even denied before us that the application of the Petitioner is still not pending and/or has been decided by the competent authority. All the averments made in the Petition are primarily supported by the Court orders and inaction on the part of the Respondents which is obviously the result of irresponsible attitude by the Committee and its office cannot be ignored by the Court.
11. We are compelled to pass an order imposing cost on the members of the Committee who are responsible for the delay because it is a glaring case of breach of public accountability. In our opinion, sense of public accountability, which applies to the facts of the present case, clearly is lacking in the members of the Committee and its officers who ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:52 ::: 26 failed to discharge their duties within time. Whatever be the reasons for non-performance of the public duty timely by them, the same has caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner. Breach of duty is actionable wrong in law and some benefit thus must accrue to the Petitioner.
12 Thus, we dispose of this Writ Petition with a direction to Respondent No.2-Committee and all its members to ensure that the application of the Petitioner be decided within a period of four weeks from today without fail. This, however, would not preclude the Petitioner from pursuing such other remedy as may be advised. The Petitioner is entitled to costs of Rs.25,000/- from the Respondents and particularly from Respondent No.2-Committee. We further direct the State to fix responsibility of the erring committee members/officers/officials who are responsible for not complying with the order dated 25th April, 2008 of this Court and recover costs to be paid by the State exchequer from each one of them in accordance with law.
13. In view of the above, rule is made absolute as aforestated.
CHIEF JUSTICE ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:52 ::: 27 A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:25:52 :::