Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

45. Mr. Dwarkadas further submits that the impugned notification becomes a weapon of unbridled harassment, whereby, its misuse by the executive acting through the Enforcement Directorate cannot be ruled out. In the case of Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India1 it is held that if the satisfaction is mala fide or is based on wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds, the court would have the jurisdiction to examine, because in that case there would be no satisfaction in regard to matters on which the concerned authority was required to be satisfied. Exercise of 1 (2006) 2 SCC 1 J.V.Salunke,PA Judgment-WP.2026.2017.doc power is subject to judicial review, at least to the extent of examining whether the conditions precedent have been satisfied or not. This examination will necessarily involve the scrutiny as to whether there existed material for the satisfaction that the situation had arisen. When considering the question of material it is not the personal whim, wish, view or opinion or the ipse dixit de hors material placed which is relevant for the purpose. The authority has to be convinced of, or has to have sufficient proof of information with regard to or has to be free from doubt or uncertainty about the state of things indicating the situation. Although the sufficiency or otherwise of the material cannot be questioned, the legitimacy of the inference drawn from the material is certainly open to judicial review. The burden of proof would, when there is a challenge brought in judicial review, be on the authority to satisfy that the material exists, since the material is within the exclusive knowledge of the authority (see paras 124, 125 and 126 of the Majority judgment of Y. K. Sabharwal, B. N. Agrawal and Ashok Bhan, JJ). Sometimes, power is coupled with a duty. Thus a limited judicial review against administrative action is always available to the courts. A person entrusted with discretion must direct himself properly in law. He must call his attention to matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from consideration matters which are J.V.Salunke,PA Judgment-WP.2026.2017.doc irrelevant. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said to be acting unreasonably. Similarly, there may be something so absurd that no sensible person could ever dream that it lay within the powers of the authority. It is an unwritten rule of law, constitutional and administrative, that whenever a decision making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, eschewing the irrelevant and the remote (Shalini Soni vs. Union of India2). A decision will be said to be unreasonable in the wednesbury sense when it is (a) based on wholly irrelevant material or irrelevant considerations; (b) it has ignored a very relevant material which it should have taken into consideration; or (c) it is so absurd that no sensible person could ever have reached it. As Lord Diplock observed in the CCSU case, a decision will be said to suffer from wednesbury unreasonableness, if it is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. Interference is called for when there is an abuse of power or what is sometimes called fraud on power (see paras 239 to 243 and 249: Minority dissenting judgment of A. Passayat, J. concurs on this issue).