Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: padfield in Chingleput Bottlers vs Majestic Bottling Company on 15 March, 1984Matching Fragments
It is urged on behalf of Messrs Majestic Bottling Company placing reliance on the decision of the House of Lords in Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food and that of this Court in Messrs Hochtief Gammon v. State of Orissa & ors. following the same that, no doubt where the reasons given are bad and the authority had not taken into consideration the relevant matters or real grounds on which the order could have been passed, the Court can direct the authority to reconsider the matter in the light of such relevant matters. But it was urged that no useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter to the authority for reconsideration where all the reasons that can be given for upholding the validity of the order have been found by the Court to be bad and unsustainable. The submission] is that in such a case the Courts will not direct the authority to reconsider the matter for, then there is nothing to reconsider but the Court will direct the authority to carry out what it has by the impugned order refused to do. In Hochtief Gammon's case, this Court deduced the following principles from the decision of House of Lords in Padfield's case: