Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)
Mohammad Siraj Jindran vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 January, 2017 cites

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

15. The second limitation on the discretion of the government in grant of largess is in regard to the persons to whom such largess may be granted. It is now well settled as a result of a decision of this Court in Ramanna D Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, that the government is not free, like an ordinary individual, in selecting the recipients for its largess and it cannot chose to deal with any person it pleases in its absolute and unfettered discretion. The law is now well established that the government need not deal with anyone, but if it does so, it must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure. Where the government is dealing with the public whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or granting other forms of largess, the government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in a conformity with some standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The governmental action must not be arbitrary or capricious, but must be based on some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. This 8 rule was enunciated y the court as a rule of administrative law and it was also validated by the court as an emanation flowing directly from the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14.
Supreme Court of India Cites 47 - Cited by 2519 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress vs Staet Of M.P. & Ors on 6 April, 2011

"49. State and its agencies and instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person at sweet will and whims of the political entities or officers of the State. However, decision and action of the State must be founded on a sound, transparent and well- defined policy which shall be made known to the public. The disposal of the government land by adopting a discriminatory and arbitrary method shall always be avoided and it should be done in a fair and equitable manner as the allotment on favouritism or nepotism influences the exercise of discretion. Even assuming that if the rule or regulation prescribes the mode of allotment by entertaining individual application or by tenders or competitive biding, the rule of law requires publicity to be given before such allotment is made. CIDCO authorities should not adopt a pick and choose method while allotting government land. Furthermore, this Court has already stated in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of M.P.9 that the State or its agencies or instrumentalities must give largesse founded on a sound, transparent discernible and well-defined policy, which should be made known to the public at large and further held that a rational policy of allotting land on the basis of individual applications cannot dehors an invitation or advertisement by the State or its instrumentality, bringing it to the knowledge of public at large so that the eligible persons should not be excluded from lodging their competitive claims."
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 167 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1