Skip to main content

Discretion of Ministers'... a reasonable read...

I produce here one landmark English case – The padfield Case [1968] AC 997, decided by one of the most celebrated Judge of England- Lord Denning. This is how Lord Denning dealt with the case before it. His Lordship said-

“It is plain to me that by these provisions parliament has provided machinery by which complaints of farmers can be investigated by a committee which is independent of the board and by which those complaints, if justified, can be remedied. No other machinery is provided. This case raises the important question: How far can the Minister reject the complaint out of hand ? Is the Minister at liberty in his unfettered discretion to withhold the matter from the committee of investigation and thus refuse the farmers a hearing by the committee ? And by refusing a hearing, refuse a remedy ? Mr Kemp, who appeared for the Milk Marketing Board, contended that the Minister need not consider the complaint at all. He could throw it into the waste paper basket without looking at it. The Solicitor General did not support this argument It is clearly untenable. The Minister is under a duty to consider every complaint so as to see whether it should be referred to the committee of investigation. I can well see that he may quite properly reject some of the complaints without more ado. They may be frivolous or wrong headed: or they may be repetitive of old complaint already disposed of. But there are others which he cannot properly reject. In my opinion every genuine complaint which is worthy of investigation by the committee of investigation should be referred to that committee. The Minster is not at liberty to refuse it on grounds which are arbitrary or capricious. Nor because he has a personal antipathy to the complainant or does not like his political views. Nor on any other irrelevant ground.


It is said that the decision of the Minister is administrative and not judicial. But that does not mean that he can do as he likes, regardless of right or wrong. Nor does it mean that courts are powerless to correct him. Good administration requires that complaints should be investigated and that grievances should be remedied. When Parliament has set up machinery for that very purpose, it is not for the Minister to brush it on one side. He should not refuse to have complaint investigated without good reason.


But it is said that Minister is not bound to give any reason at all. And that, if he gives no reason, his refusal cannot be questioned. So why does it matter if he gives bad reason ? I do not agree. This is the only remedy available to a person aggrieved. Save, of course, for Questions in the House which Parliament itself did not consider suitable. Else why did it set up a committee of investigation ? If the Minister is to deny the complainant a hearing- and a remedy- he should have at least good reason for his refusal: and when asked, he should give them. If he does not do so, the Court may infer that he has no good reason. If it appears to the Court that the Minister has been, or must have been, influenced by extraneous considerations which ought not to have influenced him- or, conversely, has failed, or must have failed, to take into account considerations which ought to have influenced him – the court has power to interfere. It can issue a mandamus to compel him to consider the complaint properly.

sandeep.

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.

Sandeep Jalan

Advocate

Law Referencer: https://www.litigationplatform.com/


Thank you.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Commercial Courts / Suits - Pleadings and Procedure

The Commercial Courts, Act, 2015 – A broad framework In order to ensure speedy disposal of disputes which arises from commercial transactions involving high value, the Parliament of India has come out with a unique legislation namely, The Commercial Courts, Act, 2015; wherein Commercial Courts / Divisions are to be constituted in the existing district Courts and in High Courts; and wherein disputes arising from specified commercial dealings involving claim of Rs.1.00 Crore or above would be adjudicated by these newly constituted commercial Courts / Divisions. By virtue of recent Amendments, the limit of Rs.1.00 crore has been reduced to Rs.3.00 Lakhs; and accordingly claims relating to commercial disputes involving Rs.3.00 Lakhs could now be maintainable under this special regime.  And accordingly, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is substantially amended, wherein new Order XIII-A and XV-A are inserted, apart from new Order XI, Sections 35 for costs, Verification of Plea
Post a Comment
Read more

Leading Evidence during trial

1.       In case where the accused refused to plead guilty of the offence to which he is charged with, and claims to be tried, the Court calls upon the Prosecution / Complainant to lead all the evidences he has in support of his case. 2.       In criminal trial, the evidence are required to be led by the complainant and / or their witnesses by stepping into the witness box and illustrating / demonstrating to what they have witnessed. The Complainant is to examine before the Court, himself, and all other witnesses, who are “witness” to the crime, which is alleged to have been committed by the accused named in the complaint. This examination of himself and other prosecution witnesses is called “Examination – in – Chief. 3.       Giving evidence of facts is critical to any trial, be it civil trial or criminal trial. And therefore, it becomes imperative to understand the dynamics of evidence in legal sense. To put it simply, leading / giving evidence means, proving the exis
1 comment
Read more

Form II under Rule 6 of Rules, 2006, framed under the impugned Act

Impugned Provision / other anomaly Breach of Section / Article FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the impugned Act Section 3 – Explanation II; Section 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the impugned Act. Principles of natural justice. FORM II [See Rule 6(1)] Application to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)     To The Court of Magistrate .................................... .................................... .................................... .................................... Application under section ........................ of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005)            SHOWETH: That the application under section.................of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is being filed along with a copy of Domestic Incident Report by the:
Post a Comment
Read more