Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.25 seconds)
Indian Oil Corporation & Ors vs Soma Saha & Anr on 28 September, 2022 cites

Sukhdev Singh & Ors vs Bagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi And ... on 21 February, 1975

This Court accepted the rule as valid and applicable in India in A.S. Ahluwalia v. Punjab [(1975) 3 SCC 503] and in subsequent decision given in Sukhdev v. Bhagatram [(1975) 1 SCC 421], Mathew, J., quoted the above-referred observations of Mr. Justice Frankfurter with approval. It may be noted that this rule, though supportable also as an emanation from Article 14, does not rest merely on that article. It has an independent existence apart from Article 14. It is a rule of administrative law which has been judicially evolved as a check against exercise of arbitrary power by the executive authority. If we turn to the judgment of Mr Justice Frankfurter and examine it, we find that he has not sought to draw support for the rule from the equality clause of the United States 31 Constitution, but evolved it purely as a rule of administrative law. Even in England, the recent trend in administrative law is in that direction as is evident from what is stated at pp. 540-41 in Prof Wade's "Administrative Law", 4th Edn. There is no reason why we should hesitate to adopt this rule as a part of our continually expanding administrative law. Today with tremendous expansion of welfare and social service functions, increasing control of material and economic resources and large scale assumption of industrial and commercial activities by the State, the power of the executive Government to affect the lives of the people is steadily growing. The attainment of socio-economic justice being a conscious end of State policy, there is a vast and inevitable increase in the frequency with which ordinary citizens come into relationship of direct encounter with State power-holders. This renders it necessary to structure and restrict the power of the executive Government so as to prevent its arbitrary application or exercise. Whatever be the concept of the Rule of Law, whether it be the meaning given by Dicey in his "The Law of the Constitution" or the definition given by Hayek in his "Road to Serfdom" and "Constitution of Liberty" or the exposition set forth by Harry Jones in his 32 "The Rule of Law and the Welfare State", there is as pointed out by Mathew, J., in his article on "The Welfare State, Rule of Law and Natural Justice" in "Democracy, Equality and Freedom" [ Upendra Baxi, Ed. : Eastern Book Co., Lucknow (1978) p. 28] "substantial agreement in juristic thought that the great purpose of the rule of law notion is the protection of the individual against arbitrary exercise of power, wherever it is found". It is indeed unthinkable that in a democracy governed by the rule of law the executive Government or any of its officers should possess arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal requirement. And to the application of this principle it makes no difference whether the exercise of the power involves affectation of some right or denial of some privilege.......".
Supreme Court of India Cites 119 - Cited by 781 - A N Ray - Full Document

Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979

Countering the submission advanced by Mr. Jayanta Mitra learned Senior Counsel it is submitted by Mr. Bondopadhyay learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 that in the instant case there being no breach of norms the decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the appellant in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty supra has no application to the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2519 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 Next