Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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: -

"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.

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 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:-

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 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.