Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. Similarly, in (1991) 3 S.C.C. 239 [UTTAR PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. MOHAMMED ISMAIL], the Supreme Court held that the High Court cannot dictate the decision of the statutory authority. It cannot direct the statutory authority to exercise its discretion in a particular manner not expressly required by law. It "could only command the statutory authority by a writ of mandamus to perform its duty by exercising the discretion according to law". In Guruvayoor Devaswom's case supra, the Supreme Court observed, "We have also not come across any case so far where the functions required to be performed by statutory functionaries had been rendered redundant by a Court by issuing directions upon usurpation of statutory power". ..... "A person may also have a cause of action by reason of action or inaction on the part of the State or a statutory authority. An appropriate order is required to be passed or a direction is required to be issued by the High Court. In some cases, a person may feel aggrieved in his individual capacity, but the public at large may not. It is trite where a segment of the public is not interested in a case, a Public Interest Litigation would not ordinarily be entertained". In (2003) 4 S.C.C. 595 [CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR (WILD LIFE) v. NISAR KHAN], the question related to the grant of license under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Supreme Court spelt out the scope of writ jurisdiction in matters such as these. It was held therein that when the licensing authority arrives at a finding of fact having regard to the past transactions of a licensee that it cannot carry on any business by reason of breeding of captive birds but necessarily therefor he is to hunt, he would be justified in refusing to grant a license in terms of the provisions of the Act. Unless the provisions of the Act and the Rules are construed strictly and in the manner stipulated, the very purpose for which the Act has been enacted would be lost. The Supreme Court held, "The High Court, in our opinion, committed a manifest error in directing the appellants herein to grant license in favour of the respondent..... It was not within the domain of the High Court to issue the impugned direction". Equally, the High Court cannot issue direction to refuse license. Therefore, when the licensing authority is still seized of the matter relating to the grant of license to the sixth respondent, this Court cannot outreach its jurisdiction and decide the manner in which the application for the grant of license should be considered by the licensing authority. The prayer, as framed in the writ petition, cannot be granted and in view of the stand taken by us with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition, we do not think it necessary to mould the relief.