Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court towards judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489 (Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors.) in which according to learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that administrative authorities are bound by the norms, standards and procedure laid down by it for others. Disregard to the norm or standard would invalidate its action unless based on some valid principle which is neither irrational or unreasonable nor discriminatory. The State Government cannot Act arbitrarily in entering into relationship, contractual or otherwise with a third party but its action must conform some standards or norms, which is rational and non-discriminatory. But, here in this case, the respondent No.5 has been granted a special indulgence while accepting his applications without any demand draft, therefore, in view of the judgment in case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra), the action of the respondents accepting the application forms without demand draft or on the basis of other document then the demand draft is illegal. So also, there is no power left with the respondents to relax the said condition.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that action of the respondents cannot be treated as non compliance of the terms of the application form. The Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. upon enquiry assured that the Society is prepared to make payment of the bill of exchange, which is pay order, as and when presented to it, therefore, the pay orders are not unknown phenomena but are documents akin to banker's drafts for current use frequently obtained by customers for making payments to Government Department. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the respondent Department while accepting the pay order filed by the respondent No.5 along with application form. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that this writ petition suffers from non- joinder of necessary party because the petitioner is challenging the credibility, competence and authority of Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., therefore, the said Society is necessary party and in absence of said society, the writ petition is not maintainable. Further, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that on one hand, the petitioner without any pleading raising voice with regard to status of Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. but on the other hand in reply to the preliminary objections raise in para No.10 of the preliminary objections, it is specifically stated by the petitioner that the preliminary objections are denied and further it is stated that there is no challenge to the credibility, competence and authority of the Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. but challenge has been made to the illegal action of the respondent-Department, therefore, the Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. is not a necessary party. Hence, the preliminary objection is not tenable.

In my opinion, the State Government has issued administrative instructions and terms/conditions which are not statutory in character, therefore, it is to be seen which condition is essential and which is ancillary and, to what extent, this Court can interfere in the decision taken by the State Government while accepting the application on the basis of a document/instrument other than a demand draft. In this view of the matter, upon perusal of the language used in para 4.2 of the terms/conditions, it is obvious that a condition was incorporated that every application shall be accompanied by demand draft of 1% of the licence fee as application fee in favour of the District Excise Officer. But, in the event of filing other document/instrument, decision was taken by the respondent Department that upon enquiry if it is satisfied by the financial institution that the payment shall be released forthwith, then, those applications may also be accepted. This decision was taken upon the objection raised by the petitioner at the time of lottery as per condition No.17 of the said terms/conditions in which there is power left with the respondent Department to take final decision in case any dispute arises. Said condition No.17 reads as under :