ALL ANNOYING DECISONS CARRIES WEIGHT OF 79 KGS TO 239 KGS

ALL ANNOYING DECISONS CARRIES WEIGHT OF 79 KGS TO 239 KGS

What is annoying decision may be defined first. A decision of the court or of the govt, which produces annoyance at the first thought and produces sense of absurdity at second thought, to all reasonable thinking man, is certainly an annoying decision, also illegal (unconstitutional) decision, it seems to me and vulnerable to challenge for certain violation of principles of natural justice.

Some instances that happened in the immediate past and I found the occasion to rewrite this. The definite objective of writing this is to further enlighten myself and of course sharing the same with my citizenry friends, of this issue that keep surfacing in regular succession. Those “some instances” were- Maharashtra govt decision to allow liquor to be made from foodgrains; Maharashtra govt decision to introduce a rule wherein Taxi permits will be given to only those who are having a domicile of 15 yrs in Maharashtra and if they can speak Marathi; Bombay High Court imposed fine Rs.40 Lacs on a NGO for wasting time of the court, the Chief Justice of India and Attorney General opined that Supreme court of India should not have benches at other corners of the country, contrary to mandate of the constitution of India and to the Law commission of India.

The acts of convenient omission should actually be read as positive decision of the govt. Like for eg., the govt has decided that childrens should continue to beg, people may continue to live on footpath, the corrupts should continue to have all substantial legal protection against prosecution for corruption.

Annoying decisions take variety of forms. To illustrate I need to borrow the wisdom of Dr Upendra Baxi, one of the finest Indian Legal mind.

As an Authority of Public Power, I have this and that power. I exercise it in this or that manner because I so wish. The only good reason which I exercise my power this or that manner is that I wish to exercise it in this or that manner.

As an Authority of Public Power- I may so act as to favour some and disfavour others;

As an Authority of Public Power- I may so act as to give an impression that I am acting within my powers but in reality I may be acting outside it;

As an Authority of Public Power- I may decide by myself what your rights and liabilities are without giving you any chance to be heard, Or I may make your opportunity to be heard a meaningless ritual;

As an Authority of Public Power- I may decide but declines to let you know the reasons or grounds of my decisions or provide reasons without being reasonable;

As an Authority of Public Power- I may use my power to help you only if I am gratified in cash or in kind;

As an Authority of Public Power- I may choose to use my power only after a good deal of delay and inconvenience to people;

As an Authority of Public Power- I may just refuse to exercise the powers I have regardless of my legal obligation to act and regardless of social impact of my inaction;

Also the views of Robson, a very prominent english author, are very pertinent here. According to him, within certain limits the individual who exercise discretion is quite free. But if he ventures outside those frontiers, and his power ends when he takes into consideration matters fantastic and foreign to subject matter and decides the matter according to his will and private affection, then he is regarded a having failed to exercise any discretion at all.


The necessary legal incidents in the present issue, that comes to my mind are-

)1) Democracy
)2) Constitution of India
)3) Discretionary powers of State organs
)4) Principles of Natural Justice
)5) Rule of Law
)6) How to deal with annoying decisions.

)1) Democracy
)2) Constitution of India

In our vast, beautiful, geographical landscape of India, i.e. Bharat, no one will dispute, the constitution of India is the supreme & fundamental governing volume. It is nearly self contained as to broad principles of governance. It is mammoth in its content, defining every bit of good governance for the very accomplishment of security of life and of property to all Indians residing wherever in any corner of the world territory.

This epic governing volume makes a categorical announcement in the introductory passage that people of India is the architect of this volume. And therefore, every bit of word, whether by guidance or by mandatory injunction, contained in this governing volume, can safely be taken as, will bring prosparity to people of india when adhered to it, in letter and spirit. The spirited adherence to the words of this governing volume is the first promise all men at State organs make to the people of india.

All men comprising the State organs, as characterized in this governing volume, chiefly the Legislatures, the Executive government and the Judiciary, draw their origin, draw their auhtority and discharge their responsibilities within four corners of injunctions in this governing volume. These State organs, while in every exercise of their discretionary powers, take inspiration and guidance from this governing volume.


Our Parliamentary Electoral Democracy is about reaching to a certain number and where CITIZENS of “age of reason” collectively throw their WEIGHT in one and reject all others. The Law passed by Parliament, Of Course within Constitutional limitation, it appears to me, carries the combined wisdom of 542+250 “men” and carries the weight of 110 Crores People. The Law passed by State Legislature, Of Course within Constitutional limitation, it appears to me, has variably combined Wisdom of 250 to 300 “men” and variably carries weight of 1 to 10 Crores People.

In the words of Robert McChesney, professor of Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, America, "In many respects, we now live in a society that is only formally democratic, as the great mass of citizens have minimal say on the major public issues of the day, and such issues are scarcely debated at all in any meaningful sense in the electoral arena."

In the words of Michael Parenti, a prolific American author and charismatic speaker, "To oppose the policies of a government does not mean you are against the country or the people that the government supposedly represents. Such opposition should be called what it really is: democracy, or democratic dissent, or having a critical perspective about what your leaders are doing. Either we have the right to democratic dissent and criticism of these policies or we all lie down and let the leader, the Fuhrer, do what is best, while we follow uncritically, and obey whatever he commands. That's just what the Germans did with Hitler, and look where it got them."

He Continued, "Democracy is not about trust; it is about distrust. It is about accountability, exposure, open debate, critical challenge, and popular input and feedback from the citizenry. It is about responsible government. We have to get our fellow Americans to trust their leaders less and themselves more, trust their own questions and suspicions, and their own desire to know what is going on."

)3) Discretionary powers of State organs, comprising the Legislatures, the Govt and the Judiciary.
)4) Principles of Natural Justice

In modern democracies, wide powers vest with Legislators, Judges and with Administrators, with Govt, and with Bureaucrats. Each group, if it so wishes, may act quite fancy, in any or all the ways thus far specified hereinbefore.

Yet, forms of accountability may differ but the basic idea remains the same that the holders of High Public Office must be able to publicly justify their exercise of power not only as legally valid but also socially wise just and reasonable, chiefly designed to add something more to the quality of life of the people. Every exercise of Power depend on this ideal for its validity.

Discretion being an element in all powers, what appears to be a Judicial review for breach of natural justice is in reality a review of abuse of discretion. Discretion in reality means a power given to a person with the authority to choose between two or more alternatives or possibilities each of which is lawful and permissible. Discretion is a Science or understanding to discern (to distinguish) between falsity and truth; between right and wrong, between shadow and substance, between equity and pretence and not to do according to wills and private affections.

The concept of discretion imports a duty to be fair, candid and unprejudiced; not arbitrary, capricious or biased; much less, warped by resentment or personal dislike. Discretion allowed by the statute to the holder of an office is intended to be exercise according to the rules of reason and not according to personal opinion.

Discretionary powers are never absolute. Even if a statutory pronouncement state explicitly that the discretion it grants is absolute, this discretion is interpreted as requiring the holder of the authority to act strictly according to some procedure such as granting a hearing and acting impartially and acting in such a way to achieve the goal of the legislation for which the authority has been granted.

LORD GREENE, MR in Associated Provincial Picture House Ltd Vs Wednesbury Corp observed that it is a established law that a Person entrusted with a discretion must direct himself properly in law. He must call his own attention to the matters which he is bound to consider. He must exclude from his considerations matters which are irrelevant to the matter that he has to consider. If he does not obey those rules, he may truly be said, and often is said, to be acting unreasonably.

The Supreme Court cautioned that with the change in socio-economic outlook, the Public Servants are being entrusted with more and more discretionary powers even in the field of distribution of government wealth in various forms. 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. Common Cause V Union Of India. AIR 1996 SC 3538.
It may be noted that the duty to act judicially may arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed. Thus, in R V Lord Chancellor ex p witham, it was held that the statutory power conferred on Lord Chancellor to prescribe the fees to be taken in the Supreme Court did not authorize setting of fees at such a level as to preclude access to the courts by the would be litigants. The general words of the statutory provision did not authorize the abrogation of such a basic constitutional right as the right of access to the courts. Such basic rights are not to be overridden by the general words of a statute.

Justice B CARDOZO in his book The Growth of the Law Opined Complete freedom- unfettered and undirected- that never is. A thousand limitations- the product some of statute, some of precedent, some of vague tradition or of an immemorial technique- encompass and hedge us even when we think of ourselves as ranging freely and at large.

Justice RAND in a Canadian case observed that in Public Regulations there is no such thing as absolute and untrammelled discretion, that is that action can be taken on any ground for any reason that can be suggested to the mind of the administrator.

In the words of LORD CAIRNS, “Where a power is deposited with a Public officer for the purpose of being used for the benefit of persons who are specifically pointed out, and with regard to whom a definition is supplied of the condition upon which they are entitled, the power ought to be exercised, and the court will require it to be exercised. Ramdas Shriniwas Nayak V Union of Union of India AIR 1995 BOM 235.

The Apex Court in one case viewed that when statute confers discretion on a holder of public office that should be exercised reasonable and rationally. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation V Mohd Ismail (1991) 3 SCC 239.

If a decision on a matter is so unreasonable that no authority could ever have come to it, then the courts can interfere. The repository of discretion must be prepared to justify in court the reasonableness of his belief and in arriving at a decision in the exercise of his discretionary powers. It is not enough to say that the discretion was exercised honestly by the authority.

In sant Raj’s Case the Labour Court found that the termination of service of the Appellants was bad and illegal but declined to grant the relief of reinstatement which should have ordinarily followed and instead in exercise of its discretion awarded one year’s wage as compensation in lieu of reinstatement on the ground that “the termination of service of each of the appellants was bona fide and not a colorable exercise of powers in accordance with service rules. The Supreme Court found an error apparent on the face of the record of the case inasmuch as if the termination of service was according to service rules and bona fide, it could not be simultaneously held to be illegal and invalid. The Apex Court therefore held that the discretion was exercised on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. Sant Raj Vs O. P. Singla AIR 1985

LORD HUDSON in Padfield’s Case was of the view that although it is true that the Minister is not bound to give his reasons for refusing to exercise his discretion, yet when the circumstances indicates a genuine complaint for which the appropriate remedy is provided, the Minister would not escape from the possibility of control by Mandamus (a Writ) for adopting a negative attitude without explanation. Padfield Vs Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997; [1968] 1 ALL ER 694.

The question as to whether an administrative authority should record reasons for its decisions has however come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in number of cases. Underlying the need the SC in Travancore Rayons Ltd Vs Union of India AIR 1971 SC 862 observed that the necessity to give sufficient reasons which disclose proper appreciation of the problem to be solved and the mental process by which the conclusion is reached where a non judicial authority exercises a judicial function is obvious. Here in this case the order of the Central Govt in rejecting a Revision u/s 36 of the Central Excises & Salt Act 1944 merely stated that the Govt having carefully considered the points made by the Applicant saw no reason to interfere with the order. The order of the Central Govt being laconic (brief) was held to be vitiated.

With the proliferation of administrative law, administrative authorities are in some kind of cases replacing courts of law and that has made all the more necessary that such authorities should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. The Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd Vs The Union of India AIR 1976 SC 1785

The reasons if disclosed would be open to judicial scrutiny for ascertaining their nexus with the order, the refusal to disclose the reasons would equally be open to the scrutiny of the Court. Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 at page 613.

The quasi judicial authorities are enjoined with the duty and responsibility to see to it that in adjudicating upon proceedings which come up before them they pass properly reasoned orders so that those who are affected by such orders are assured that their case have received proper consideration at the hands of the said authorities and that such decisions have been reached according to law and have not been the result of caprice, whim or fancy and have been reached on ground of policy or expediency. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd Vs Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala AIR 1961 SC 1669

The vesting of discretion is the unspoken but inescapable, silent command of our judicial system and those who exercise it will remember that discretion when applied to a court of Justice means sound discretion guided by law.

Fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons when an order affects the right of a citizen or a person irrespective of the fact whether it is judicial, quasi judicial or administrative act. Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned has applied its mind to the facts on record. Reasons also aids the Appellate or Revisional Authority to see whether the maker of the order, Judgment, decree has justly meet out justice to the aggrieved person. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Vs K.S. Gandhi (1991) 2 SCC 715

The giving of satisfactory reasons is required by the ordinary man’s sense of justice and is also a healthy discipline for all who exercise powers over others. Reasoned decisions are vital for the purpose of showing that he is receiving justice.

It is pertinent to note that any action, decision or order of any statutory or public authority bereft of reasoning would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust violating article 14 of the Constitution of India or would be deemed to have been taken or arrived at by adopting unfair procedure offending article 21 of Constitution of India. Krishna Swami Vs Union of India. AIR 1993 SC 1407

Reasons disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi judicial; and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. Union of India Vs Mohan Lal Capoor (1973) 2 SCC 836

The reasons employed not only be intelligible but which will also deal with the substantial points which have been raised. What is of utmost importance is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy.

In Breen Vs Amalgamated Engineering Union, LORD DENNING MR, observed that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.

As President of the National Industrial Relations Court, SIR JOHN DONALDSON in Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd Vs Crabtree, observed that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of Justice.

Justice SUBBA RAO in a dissenting judgment once observed that if tribunals can make orders without giving reasons, the said powers in the hands of unscrupulous or dishonest officers may turn out to be a potent weapon for abuse of power. But if reasons for an order are given it will be an effective restraint on such abuse. Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd Vs Union of India AIR 1966 SC 671

An order of Quasi Judicial nature without reasons is a wholly defective order in the eyes of law. Govt of India Vs Maxim A Lobo (1991) 190 ITR 101

The fate of Justice is tied to the thread of reason. The concentrated view that emerges in the background as aforesaid runs to the effect that the greatest guarantee of Justice is not the law but the personality of the Judge and the way he discharges his duties and functions. The very search for reasons will put the authority on alert and minimize the chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion.

It deserves mentioning here the Bombay High Court Ruling on Govt of Maharashtra Proposed 90:10 Formula in Junior College Admissions. The Hon Court lamblasted the State, termed its decision as “arbitrary, un-constitutional and taken without application of mind, their arguments being “artificial and imaginary”. The court went further and said the decision was brought in for political ambitions.

The Soul of Natural Justice is fair play in action, in every exercise of discretion.

Justice is based substantially on natural ideals and human values. Rules of Natural Justice operate as checks on the freedom of administrative actions. Although adherence to it may often prove to be time consuming yet that is the price one has to pay to ensure fairness in administration. Where a Statute confers wide powers on an administrative authority coupled with side discretion, the possibility of its arbitrary use can be controlled or checked by insisting on their being exercised in a manner which can be said to be procedurally fair. Rules of natural Justice are devised for ensuring fairness and promoting satisfactory decision making. Its non observance invalidates the exercise of power, save certain acts.

Whenever a Complaint is made before a Court that Principles of Natural Justice has been not observed, the Court has to decide whether the observance was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.

In India, the Apex Court has time and again equated the principles of natural justice with fairness in action. In D K Yadav Vs JMA Industries Ltd, the SC Observed that in arriving at a decision, the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable in particular circumstances of the case.

In matters involving civil consequesnces, any decision or Order has to be made consistently with rules of natural justice. State of Orissa V Dr (Miss) Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269. Likewise, where exercise of a power results in civil consequences to citizens, unless the statute specifically rules out the application of natural justice, such rules would apply. Baldev Singh V State of Himachal Pradesh (1987) 2 SCC510. Every Authority, Quasi Judical, or administrative or Executive, should act fairly, reasonably and in a just manner, when the result of the exercise of powers is likely to affect any person or visit him with civil consequences. A K Kraipak V Union Of India AIR 1970 SC 150.

Comes with this the associated question: What is a Civil Consequence ? “ Civil Consequences undoubtedly cover, viewed the SC in Mohinder Singh Gill case, infraction of not merely property or personal rights, but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non pecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation, everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence.

The suspension or revocation of license of a professional too would be visited with civil and penal consequences. The Supreme Court in Binapani Dei's case observed that if “there is power to decide and determine to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentialsd of Justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. State of Orissa V Dr(miss) Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269; Then followed several other decisions outlining the legal position to the effect that any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is a nullity.

A K Kraipak V Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150;

R B Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatehchand Nursing Das V Settlement Comission (I.T. & W.T.) AIR 1989 SC 1038;

Govt of India V Maxim A Lobo (1991) 190 ITR 101 (Mad HC).

Failure to conform to the principles of natural justice would make a judicial or quasi judicial order void and such an Order cannot be validated by the appellate or Revisional order. Ponkunnam Traders V Addl ITO , Kottayam (1972) 83 ITR 508;
Addl ITO V Ponkunnam Traders ( 1976) 102 ITR 366 ( Ker HC DB).

It has been upheld by the Apex Court violation of rules of natural Justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination and where discrimination is the result of State action, it is violation of Article 14. Union of India V Tulsiram Patel AIR 1985 SC 1416.

The Principles of natural Justice forms part of Art.14 of Constitution of India. Dr K C Malhotra V The Chancellor, H P University, Shimla AIR 1995 HP 156 (DB).

In cases therefore where an order is made in violation of rules of natural justice, relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution will not be denied. Titaghur Paper mills Co Ltd V State of Orissa AIR 1983 SC 603.

In Malloch V Aberdeen Corporation, LORD WILBERFORCE stated that breach of procedure cannot give a remedy in the courts unless behind it there is something of substance which has been lost by the failure. The Court does not act in vain.

In Union Carbide Corporation V Union of India the SC observed that where there is violation of natural justice no resultant or independent prejudice need be shown, as the denial of natural justice is, in itself sufficient prejudice and it is no answer to say that even with observance of natural justice the same conclusion would have reached. AIR 1992 SC 248 at p.299.

LAWTON, LJ in Maxwell's Case said, “doing what is right may still result in unfairness, if it is done in the wrong way.

Legitimate Expectation Doctrine: In all State actions, the State and its instrumentalities have to conform to Art. 14 of the Constitution of India of which non arbitrariness is a significant facet. To satisfy this requirement of non arbitrariness in a State action, it is important to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision, or else that unfairness in the exercise of the powers may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to the challenge on the ground of arbitrariness.

Government Policy: So far as questioning the Validity of Govt Policy is concerned, it is not within domain of any Court to weigh the pros and cons of the policy or to scrutinise it and test the degree of its beneficial or equitable disposition for the purpose of varying, modifying or annuling it, based on howsoever sound and good reasoning, except where it is violative of any Constitutional, Statutory or any other provisions of law. State of Punjab V Ram Lubhaya Bagga JT 1998 (2) SC 136.

Policy decision of the Govt unless vitiated by malafides cannot be interfered with. Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari sakhar Sangh Ltd State of Maharashtra JT 1998 (3) SC 525.

To act fairly, reasonable and in a just manner, ie. In accordance with the well recognized rules of natural justice is a fundamental necessity to every authority, be it quasi judicial or administrative, if the rule of law is not to be losing its validity. G Nageshwara Rao V State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 1376.

Lord Parker CJ Opined that good Administration and an honest or bona fide decision must, as it seems to me, require not merely impartiality, nor merely bringing one's mind to hear on the problem but acting fairly. (1967) 1 ALL ER 226.

The Principles of natural justice are fundamental in the constitutional set up of India.Charanlal Sahu V Union of India (1990)1 SCC 613; AIR 1990 SC 1480.

Removal of Encroachment: No one has a right to encroach upon the public property and then claim the procedure of opportunity of hearing which would be a tardious and time consuming process leading to putting a premium for unauthorized acts of encroachment. If however the Public Authority allows settlement of encroachers for a long time, then necessarily a modicum of reasonable notice for removal is necessary. Ahmedabad Municipal Corp V Nawab Khan Gulab Khan AIR 1997 SC 152.

The rules of natural justice should not be allowed to be exploited as a purely technical weapon to undo a decision which does not in reality cause substantial injustice. R V Secretary of State for the Home Dept, ex p Mughal (1973)3 ALL ER 796.

In the administration of Justice, it is a part of Judicial Vocabulary.

Concept of natural justice is a magnificant throroughbred on which this nation gallop forwards towards its proclaimed and destined goal of justice, social, economic and political. Satyavir Singh V Union of India AIR 1986 SC 555.

I cannot conceive any harm that could happen to the district board from hearing the party before they subjected him to a loss so serious as the demolition of his house; but i can conceive a great many advantages which might arise in the way of public order, in the way of doing substantial justice and in the way of fulfilling the purpose of the statute, that they should hear the party before....

Whilst under Ar.310, the Pleasure of the President or the Governor would still be there, but it has to be exercised in accordance to the requirements of Art.311. Moti Ram Deka V General Manager, North east Frontier Railway.

An Office means no more than a position to which certain dutie are attached. Lord Wright in McMillan V Guest. SC inThe Statesman(pvt) Ltd V H R Deb.

Naturally, natural justice involves the irritating inconvenience for men in authority of having to hear both sides since notice and opportunity are its very marrow. This principle is so integral to good governance that the onus is on him who urges exclusion to make out why. Mohinder Singh Gill V The Chief election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851.

If Democratic legality is to animate the rule of law , then justice must be felt to be just by the community. If the invisible audience sees a man's case has been disposed of unheard, a chorus of no confidence will be heard to say: that man had no chance to defend his stance.

Essential attributes of natural Justice however can be thrown overboard only in exceptional circumstances where need for promptitude or compulsive necessity so demands.

Hearing, however once given must be genuine and not formal or empty public relation exercise. In other words there must not be lip service to this rule or an audience allowed which tantamount to nothing. Swadeshi Cotton Mills V Union Of India. AIR 1981 SC 818.

)5) Rule of Law

Laws are made and passed by legislatures which represents wishes of the people and the govt who acts on behalf of legislatures voluntarily takes oath and undertakes to fulfill the wishes of people as they administer laws and perhaps this is the premise why ministers and bureaucrats including the Judges are called Public Servants and Legislatures are not deemed as Public Servant ordinarily, except in cases of Corruption. The Govts, ordinarily, are not a law making body but a law enforcing body. They are entitled to make laws only to the extent to further the objectives of laws made by our Legislatures.

It is even not open to the Supreme Court and the High Courts to give judgments in deviation from established laws. All Statutes or Laws so made and passed by Legislatures is to remedy the ill that has plagued the society. All Statutes comes into being with some policy and objective to be achieved. Every statutory provision in a Statute comes into being after due deliberation and every letter of the law is employed with great caution and care and with some purpose.


It is suffice if one merely seek the bare observance of the letter of the law and the spirit inherent in the letter of the law. As everyone says that we live in a Rule of Law society. What we really mean by Rule of Law is that the Law which is established must be observed in all the circumstances except in cases where the Law itself is absurd and or arbitrary. Every letter of the Law must be observed with due respect, unless the same is declared by the competent court of Jurisdiction as manifestly arbitrary and or absurd.

A great deal of confusion & doubt has come to set in our minds when judges refuse citizenry of their due legal entitlements. The false impression then we earn & import is- Judges & courts are empowered to refuse citizenry their due legal entitlement. To me it is not small impression that if taking roots in our minds.. The denial to mercies of law, i.e. denial to avail the benefits of established laws only leads to violation of article 14 of the constitution of India.

)6) How to deal with annoying decisions.

However, every other day, it is seen that the Ministers & Bureaucrats are PREGNANT with such Policies & decisions which annoys every reasonable thinking man. Maharashtra govt decision to make liquor from food grain can be forwarded as best illustration. Maharashtra govt stipulation of knowledge of Marathi for new taxi permit may come second.

By and large, any absurd or any arbitrary decision, or arbitrary framing of rule or law, by Govt or by any public authority, is the outcome of the arbitrary procedure followed in reaching to that decision. Therefore, as far as possible, not the arbitrary decision but the mode of reaching that decision should be challenged. There are Rules and or set guidelines that are to be followed while deciding or framing any rule or law or taking any decision.

So whenever in future, If thy annoyed with any decision of the Govt, which all men of Ordinary Prudence will regard it fancy and if thy feel frustrating and annoying, it is suffice to move in the Court of Law and Plead, “Whilst we are a Society driven by Rule Of Law and thus Whilst Govts are obliged to follow due process of law before taking any crucial decision which has bearing on the masses”. However, before moveing to court of law, a Notice u/s 80 of Civil Procedure Code of 1908 should be issued. Please click to this link: http://commonlaw-sandeep.blogspot.com/2009/09/resolve-public-officials-negligence.html

In Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI) the Hon’ble Supreme Court took Judicial notice of the fact that the government and its agencies are the biggest litigants in the courts and are known to be a huge contributor to delays, in matters where it is a party – at various stages – from evading notices, replying to notices and replying without application of mind, unnecessarily appealing even when the laws are clearly in favor of the other side, etc.

The Court thus directed- “Having regard to the existing state of affairs, we direct all Governments, Central or State or other authorities concerned, whenever any statute requires service of notice as a condition precedent for filing of suit or other proceedings against the government or any of its agencies, to nominate, within a period of three months, an officer who shall be made responsible to ensure that replies to notices under Section 80 or similar provisions are sent within the period stipulated in a particular legislation. The replies shall be sent after due application of mind. Despite such nomination, if the court finds that either the notice has not been replied to or the reply is evasive and vague and has been sent without proper application of mind, the court shall ordinarily award heavy costs against the Government and direct it to take appropriate action against the officer concerned including recovery of costs from him”.

A new weapon is added to the armoury of section 80 on 13th January 2010 when the Bombay High Court has found the occasion to award a fine of Rs.40 lakhs on a NGO for wasting time of the court on frivolous PIL. THis order of the court may be used against Public officials who refuse to answer, diligently, notice so served to them, thereby compel the people to knock doors of court, a litigation which could have been avoided had the public officials act responsibly. PIL no.is 88 of 2008. Bombay High Court Original Jurisdiction. The Petitioner was Bhrashtachar Nirmulan Sangathan. This order of the court may be spelled out in the notice to alarm public authority/ officials.


sandeep jalan
mumbai.

Legal issues !!

If you are facing any of these issues like (a) Recovery of Moneys (b) Immovable property disputes (c) grievances against Municipalities & Govts., including challenge to legitimacy of laws etc. (d) grievances against illegalities and highhandedness of Police like illegal arrests, refusal to register FIR, deliberately flawed investigations, etc (e) False FIRs (f) False Claims (g) False evidences (h) Grievances against Judges (i) Illegal or perverse Orders of the Courts / Tribunals, among others.

or

If you are looking for draft of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the nature and attribute of any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the procedure followed in any legal proceeding; or if you want to know the grounds on which any order of the court / tribunal is challenged; or if you are facing any frivolous litigation.

https://www.litigationplatform.com/

Thank you.