U.P.State Road Transport Corporation ... vs Mohd. Ismail And Ors on 11 April, 1991
61. Mr. Khambata, the Learned Senior Advocate appearing for
Respondent No.8 has adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of Respondent
No.1. In addition, he has submitted that it is well settled that an administrative
authority can always lay down certain guidelines which aid in the exercise of its
discretionary power in individual cases. Such norms or rules by which an
administrative authority regulates the exercise of its discretion are not fetters but
rather safeguards against the arbitrary exercise of discretion. He has submitted
that even in the judgment cited on behalf of the Appellant viz. U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation & another vs. Mohd. Ismail & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the conferment of discretionary power upon an
authority does not confer any vested right in any person for the exercise of such
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:03 :::
KPP -74- Company Appeal (L) No. 28 of 2012
discretion (Para 11). The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that whereas
statutory discretion could not be fettered by self-created rules or policy, it is open
to an authority to which discretion has been entrusted to lay down the norms or
rules to regulate exercise of such discretion (Para 13). The Hon'ble Supreme
Court itself noticed that there are two factors which are relevant. Firstly, that
discretion has to be exercised within the constraint of efficiency and
effectiveness. Secondly, that discretion must be exercised according to rules of
reason and justice and not according to private opinion (Para 15). These factors
in fact support the framing of norms or rules regulating the exercise of the
Chairman's discretion.