Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)Union Of India And Another vs Tulsiram Patel And Others on 11 July, 1985
29. We may further point out that though heavy reliance has been placed by the writ petitioners, on the case of Air India Cabin Crew Association (supra), to show that the agreement reached, in the present case, is binding on the government, we would like to point out that so far as the case of Air India Cabin Crew Association (supra) is concerned, it is an authority for the proposition that though, in terms of the provisions of the relevant rules, an order or an action needs to be taken in the name of the President or the Governor, and it has not been so done, yet an action or an order passed by a Minister or an authority may, in the context of the facts of a given case become binding on the government. In the present case, though the agreement has been signed by the Minister and not, in terms of the Rules, by a competent officer in the name of the Governor of the State, this fact, in itself, would not absolve the Government from the promises made in the agreements, if it is, otherwise, proved that the Minister had acted within the knowledge and with the authority of the State Government, for, under the rules, in question, State Government's power to make such promises has not been disputed or doubted by the appellant.
Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd vs Chand Mal Baradia And Others on 29 March, 2005
9. Support for his submission that in a case of present nature, the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked, the learned Advocate General has placed reliance on Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel , Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. v. Chand Mal Baradia , Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel , and Sharma Transport v. Govt. of A.P. and Ors. .
M/S Sharma Transport Rep.By Shri ... vs Government Of A.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2001
23. There can be no dispute and, in fact, it has not been disputed that unless a power exists in law, exercise of non-existent power would be nothing, but void. If, in a given case, the minister does not have the power to take a decision or pass an order or if he is prohibited, by the rules of business, from either taking a decision or passing an order, exercise of such a non-existent power would be void ab initio. A promissory estoppel, as correctly submitted by the learned Advocate General, cannot be used to compel the Government to carry out such representation or promise, which is either prohibited by law or is devoid of authority, for, in such a case, the power can be said to have been exercised without authority of law or contrary to law. This position of law has succinctly been described by the Apex Court, at para 24 of its decision in Sharma Transport (supra), thus:
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Sripati Ranjan Biswas And Anr. on 7 August, 1975
14. While considering the present appeal, what needs to be carefully noted is that Sripati Ranjan Biswas' case (supra) is an authority for the proposition that when a decision is taken by a minister on a subject-matter, which falls within the ambit and domain of his ministry, such a decision is binding on the government. The mere fact that the decision, in such a case, has been reached or the order has been passed by the minister concerned and not by the President would not render the order, so made, ineffective.
Vasantkumar Radhakisan Vora vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 21 August, 1990
It is equally settled law that the promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government or a public authority to cany out a representation or promise which is prohibited by law or which was devoid of the authority or power of the officer of the Government or the public authority to make. Doctrine of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, it must yield place to the equity, if larger public interest so requires, and if it can be shown by the Government or public authority for having regard to the facts as they have transpired that it would be inequitable to hold the Government or public authority to the promise or representation made by it. The court on satisfaction would not, in those circumstances raise the equity in favour of the persons to whom a promise or representation is made and enforce the promise or representation against the Government or the public authority. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Vasantkumar Radhakisan Vora v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay , STO v. Shree Durga Oil Mills and Ashok Kumar Maheswari (Dr.) v. State of U.P. . Above being the position, the plea relating to promissory estoppel has no substance.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 14 January, 1998
It is equally settled law that the promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government or a public authority to cany out a representation or promise which is prohibited by law or which was devoid of the authority or power of the officer of the Government or the public authority to make. Doctrine of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, it must yield place to the equity, if larger public interest so requires, and if it can be shown by the Government or public authority for having regard to the facts as they have transpired that it would be inequitable to hold the Government or public authority to the promise or representation made by it. The court on satisfaction would not, in those circumstances raise the equity in favour of the persons to whom a promise or representation is made and enforce the promise or representation against the Government or the public authority. These aspects were highlighted by this Court in Vasantkumar Radhakisan Vora v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay , STO v. Shree Durga Oil Mills and Ashok Kumar Maheswari (Dr.) v. State of U.P. . Above being the position, the plea relating to promissory estoppel has no substance.
Mahesh Kumar Mudgil vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 8 December, 1997
17. The rules of business of a Government consist of two distinct parts; while some of the provisions of the rules may be directory, there may be provisions in the rules, which are mandatory in nature, if the rules do not empower a minister to take a decision or if a minister takes a decision on a subject matter, which is outside the domain and ambit of his ministry, such a decision would not be binding on the Government. Similarly, when the rules require prior consultation with the Finance Department as a pre-requisite for exercise of power by a minister, a decision taken by a minister without such consultation with, or concurrence of, the Finance Department, would not be binding on the Government, particularly, when such an action or decision involves revenue expenditure and is not covered by an Appropriation Act. This position of law becomes abundantly clear from the decision in Haridwar Singh (supra) and Mukesh Kumar Mudgil (supra).
M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978
In a given case, however, even when the promise is not barred by law and there is no supervening public interest permitting the Government to resile from the promise, it will be still permissible for the Government to resile from the promise made by it if it is possible for the promisee to resume its original position or to restore status quo ante if, on a reasonable opportunity being given to the promisee, the promisee can resume his original position. If the status quo ante cannot be restored, the promise would become irrevocable and can be enforced against the Government. It will be no defence for the Government to say that the promisee ought to have known the position of law that without issuance or publication of the requisite notification under the relevant statute, the promise would not be binding. (See also State of Bihar v. Suprabhat Steel reported in (1999) 1SCC 30, Motilal Padampad Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. , State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd. reported in (2004) 136 STC 35, and Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. ).
State Of Punjab vs M/S Nestle India Ltd. & Anr on 5 May, 2004
In a given case, however, even when the promise is not barred by law and there is no supervening public interest permitting the Government to resile from the promise, it will be still permissible for the Government to resile from the promise made by it if it is possible for the promisee to resume its original position or to restore status quo ante if, on a reasonable opportunity being given to the promisee, the promisee can resume his original position. If the status quo ante cannot be restored, the promise would become irrevocable and can be enforced against the Government. It will be no defence for the Government to say that the promisee ought to have known the position of law that without issuance or publication of the requisite notification under the relevant statute, the promise would not be binding. (See also State of Bihar v. Suprabhat Steel reported in (1999) 1SCC 30, Motilal Padampad Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. , State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd. reported in (2004) 136 STC 35, and Union of India v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. ).