Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.53 seconds)Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
This Court as back as in 1979 in Ramana Shetty's case
(supra) held "it must, therefore, be taken to be the
law...." that even in the matter of grant of largesses
including award of jobs, contracts, quotas and licences, the
Government must act in fair and just manner and any
arbitrary distribution of wealth would violative the law of
the land. Mr. Satish Sharma has acted in utter violation of
the law laid-down by this Court and has also infarcted
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As already stated a
minister in the Central Government is in a position of a
trustee in respect of the public property under his charge
and discretion. The petrol pumps/gas agencies are a kind of
wealth which the Government must distribute in a bona fide
manner and in conformity with law. Capt. Satish Sharma has
betrayed the trust reposed in him by the people under the
constitution. It is high time that the public servants
should be held personally responsible for their mala fide
acts in the discharge of their functions as public servants.
Lucknow Development Authority vs M.K. Gupta on 5 November, 1993
This Court in Lucknow Development Authority versus M.K.
Gupta (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 243, approved
"Misfeasance in public offices" as a part of the Law of
Tort. Public servants may be liable in damages for
malicious, deliberate or injurious wrong-doing. According to
Wade "There is, thus, tort which has been called misfeasance
in public office and which includes malicious abuse of
power, deliberate maladministration, and perhaps also other
unlawful acts causing injury". With the change in socio-
economic outlook, the public servants are being entrusted
with more and more discretionary power even in the field of
distribution of Government wealth in various forms. We take
it to be perfectly clear, that if a public servant abuses
his office either by an act of omission or commission, and
the consequence of that is injury to an individual or loss
of public property, an action may be maintained against such
public servant. No public servant can say "you may set-aside
an order on the ground of mala fide but you cannot hold me
personally liable". No public servant can arrogate to
himself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary.
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1