Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.07 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 299 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 359 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 298 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The D.F.O., South Kheri And Ors. vs Ram Sanehi Singh on 15 January, 1970
The Patna High Court also distinguished cases which
belong to the second category, such as K.N. Guruswami v. The
State of Mysore;(4) ' D.F. South Kheri v. Ram Sanehi
Singh;(5) and M/s. Shree Krishna Gyanoday Sugar Ltd. v. The
State of Bihar,(6) where the breach complained of was of a
statutory obligation. It correctly pointed out that the
cases before us do not belong to this class either.
It then, very rightly, held that the cases now before us
should be placed in the third category where questions of
pure alleged breaches of contract are involved.
Article 19 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr vs Thakur Bharat Singh on 23 January, 1967
Learned counsel contends that in the cases before us
breaches of public duty are involved. The submission made
before us is that, whenever a State or its agents or offi-
cers deal with the citizen, either when making a transaction
or, after making it, acting in exercise of powers under the
terms of contract between the parties, there is a dealing
between the State and the citizen which involves performance
of "certain legal and public duties." If we were to accept
this very wide proposition every case of a breach of con-
tract by the State or its agents or its officers would call
for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
We do. not consider this to be a sound proposition at all.
Learned counsel for the appellants cited certain author-
ities in an attempt to support his submission that the State
and its Officers are clothed with special Constitutional
obligations, including those under Article 14 of the Consti-
tution, in all their dealings with the public even when a
contract is there to regulate such dealings. The authori-
ties cited were: D.F. South Kheri v. Ram Sanehi Singh
(supra) where all that was decided, relying upon K.N. Gurus-
wamy v. The State of Mysore (supra), was that, where the
source of a right was contractual but the action complained
of was the purported exercise of a statutory power, relief
could be claimed under Article 226; and, Calcutta Gas Co.
(Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors,(1)
where the real question considered was whether the petition-
er had a locus standi to question the validity of an enact-
ment; Basheshat Nath v. The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Delhi & Rajasthan and Anr.,(2) which has nothing to do with
any breach of contract but only lays down that "Article 14
protects us from both legislative and administrative tyranny
of discrimination"; State of M.P. & Anr. v. Thakur Bharat
Singh.(3) which lays that even executive action must not be
exercised arbitrarily but must have the authority of law to
support it; S.S. Sawhney v.D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Pass-
port Officer. Govt. of India, New Delhi & Ors.,(4) which
repeats requirements of action which satisfy Article 14 and
21 of the Constitution where compliance with these provi-
sions is obligatory.
National Iron And Steel Co. Ltd. & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal & Anr on 17 January, 1967
Dr. Singhvi's argument that the State Government had
some special obligations attached to it would have appeared
more plausible if it could be shown that the State or its
officers or agents had practised some discrimination against
the petitioners-appellants at the very threshold or at the
time of entry into the field of contract so as to exclude
them from consideration when compared with others on any
unreasonable or unsustainable ground struck by Article 14 of
the Constitution. It is true that the Article 14 of the
Constitution imports a limitation or imposes an obligation
upon the State's executive power under Article 298 of the
Constitution. All constitutional powers carry corresponding
obligations with them. This is the rule of law which regu-
lates the operation of organs of Government functioning
under a Constitution. And, this is exactly what was meant
to be laid down by this Court in Erusian Equipment & Chemi-
cals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.,(1) on which
learned counsel for the appellants sought to rely strongly.
It was held there (at p. 677) :--
Banchhanidhi Rath vs The State Of Orissa And Ors. on 9 December, 1971
In Banchhanidhi Rath v. The State of Orissa & Ors(1) this
Court declared (at p. 845):