Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.31 seconds)Article 41 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 60 in The Indian Easements Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Kasinka Trading And Another, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India And Another on 18 October, 1994
The Court, in that case, upheld the withdrawal of exemption in public interest since it was a matter of Government policy with which the Court would not interfere in absence of any manifest injustice, mala fide or fraud.
Krishnan Kakkanth vs Government Of Kerala And Ors. on 7 February, 1996
In Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala and others, , it was held by the Apex Court that to ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is immaterial whether a better or more comprehensive policy decision could have been taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose for which such decision has been taken. Unless the policy decision is demonstrably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever, or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provisions of the Constitution of India, the policy decision cannot be struck down. It should be borne in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing a public policy in the contest of illegality and unconstitutionality, courts should avoid embarking on unchartered ocean of public policy.
Bombay Hawkers' Union And Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation And Ors on 3 July, 1985
42. Counsel for the petitioners did place reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court viz, Bombay Hawker's Union and Ors, v. Bombay Municipal Corporation and ors. and AIR 1989 SC 1998, Sodden Singh and etc. v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and another etc. We have considered these decisions, but we find that the principles laid down in these decisions do not help the petitioners. As we have observed earlier, in the facts of this case, we find that no restriction whatsoever has been placed on the right of the petitioners to deal in Zhunka Bhakar, and all that the Government has decided as a matter of policy is not to grant any special assistance for the sale of Zhunka Bhakar, as it had done earlier, since it had come to the conclusion that the Scheme had failed to achieve its objective. There is no infringement at all of the right guaranteed under Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the petitioners cannot compare themselves with hawkers who claimed a right to carry on their hawking business, not because the sites were made available to them by the Corporation, but on the basis that they had been carrying on the said business for many years and had, therefore, acquired a right to do so in future. In the instant case, the Zhunka Bhakar Centres are the creation of a Scheme pursuant to a Government policy. If the policy is changed, and the Scheme invoked, the petitioners can claim no right to hold on to the stalls allotted to them under the Scheme.
Dwarkadas Marfatia & Sons vs Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 April, 1989
In M/s Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, , the Apex Court held that there is always a presumption that a Governmental action is reasonable and in public interest. It is for the parties challenging its validity to show that the action is unreasonable, arbitrary or contrary to the professed norms or not informed by public interest, and the burden is a heavy one. In the case of Food Corporation of India v. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, , it was held that in contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law : A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is fairplay in action. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision-making process in all State actions. It is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision. However, the mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weightage to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Their Lordships, however, went on to observe that whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny.