Matching Fragments
HC-NIC Page 6 of 9 Created On Tue Jan 19 01:35:02 IST 2016
C/SCA/780/2016 JUDGMENT
23. In our system, the Constitution is supreme, but the real power vest in
the people of India. The Constitution has been enacted for the people, by
the people and of the people. A public functionary cannot be permitted to
act like a dictator causing harassment to a common man and in particular
when the person subject to harassment is his own employee.
24. Regarding the harassment to a common man referring to the
observations of Lord Hailsham in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome, 1972 AC
1027 and Lord Devlin in Rooks v. Barnard and Ors., the Apex Court in
Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, 1993 6 JT 307, held as
under:
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... 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... Harassment of a common man by public
authorities is socially abhorring and legally
impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury
to society is far more grievous. (para 10)
25. The above observatins as such have been reiterated in Ghaziabad
Development Authorities v. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 JT 17(SC).
26. The Respondents being State under Article 12 of the Constitution of
India, its officers are public functionaries. As observed above, under our
Constitution, sovereignty vest in the people. Every limb of the
constitutional machinery therefore is obliged to be people oriented. Public
authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions
oppressively are accountable for their behaviour. It is high time that this
Court should remind the respondents that they are expected to perform in
a more responsible and reasonable manner so as not to cause undue and
avoidable harassment to the public at large and in particular their ex
employees like the PetitionerS. The respondents have the support of entire
machinery and various powers of the statute. An ordinary citizen or a
common man is hardly equipped to match such might of State or its
instrumentalities. Harassment of a common man by public authorities is
socially abhorring and legally impressible. This may harm the common
man personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and
corruption, thrive and prosper in society due to lack of public resistance.
An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting mostly succumbs
to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices instead of standing
HC-NIC Page 7 of 9 Created On Tue Jan 19 01:35:02 IST 2016
C/SCA/780/2016 JUDGMENT
against it. It is on accountof, sometimes, lack of resources or unmatched
status which give the feeling of helplessness. Nothing is more damaging
than the feeling of helplessness. Even in ordinary matters a common man
who has neither the political backing nor the financial strength to match
inaction in public oriented departments gets frustrated and it erodes the
credibility in the system. This is unfortunate that matters which require
immediate attention are being allowed to linger on and remain
unattended. No authority can allow itself to act in a manner which is
arbitrary. Public administration no doubt involves a vast amount of
administrative discretion which shields action of administrative authority
but where it is found that the exercise of power is capricious or other than
bona fide, it is the duty of the Court to take effective steps and rise to the
occasion otherwise the confidence of the common man would shake. It is
the responsibility of the Court in such matters to immediately rescue such
common man so that he may have the confidence that he is not helpless
but a bigger authority is there to take care of him and to restrain
arbitrary and arrogant, unlawful inaction or illegal exercise of power on
the part of the public functionaries.(vide Abdul Kuddus Khan V. State of
UP and Others, Civil Misc. Writ petition No.22315 of 2008, decided on
22nd February, 2011).
