Bangalore Medical Trust vs B.S. Muddappa And Ors on 19 July, 1991
(ii) While considering, a litigation arising out of Bangalore
Development Authority Act, 1976, the Supreme Court in Bangalore Medical
Trust v. B.S.Muddappa and others, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 54, held that
"Discretion is an effective tool in administration. It
provides an opinion to the authority concerned to adopt one or
the other alternative. But a better, proper and legal exercise
of discretion is one where the authority examines the fact, is
aware of law and then decides objectively and rationally what
serves the interest better. When a statute either provides
guidance or rules or regulations are framed for exercise of
discretion then the action should be in accordance with it.
Even where statutes are silent and only power is conferred to
act in one or the other manner, the Authority cannot act
whimsically or arbitrarily. It should be guided by
reasonableness and fairness. The legislature never intends its
authority to abuse the law or use it unfairly. Where the law
requires an authority to act or decide, 'if it is appears to it
http://www.judis.nic.in
necessary' or if he is 'of opinion that a particular act should
be done' then it is implicit that it should be done
17
objectively, fairly and reasonably. In a democratic set up the
people or community being sovereign the exercise of discretion
must be guided by the inherent philosophy that the exerciser of
discretion is accountable for his action. It is to be tested on
anvil of rule of law and fairness or justice particularly if
competing interests of members of society is involved.
Decisions affecting public interest or the necessity of doing
it in the light of guidance provided by the Act and rules may
not require intimation to person affected yet the exercise of
discretion is vitiated if the action is bereft of rationality,
lacks objective and purposive approach. Public interest or
general good or social betterment have no doubt priority over
private or individual interest but it must not be a pretext to
justify the arbitrary or illegal exercise of power. It must
withstand scrutiny of the legislative standard provided by the
statute itself. The authority exercising discretion must not
appear to be impervious to legislative directions. The action
or decision must not only be reached reasonably and
intelligibly but it must be related to the purpose for which
power is exercised."