UNIT-IV

Administrative Discretion – grant and exercise of discretion –

judicial review of administrative discretion, control of
administrative action- Judicial control – Public Law Review and
Private Law Review of Administration action- distinction -Writs-
theory, practice and procedure – ouster clauses-Liability of State
Torts, Contract- Promissory Estoppel-Government Privileges-
Right of Information-Doctrine of Legitimate expectation-
Doctrine of Proportionality.
 Administrative Discretion
India is not a police state but it is welfare state. Welfare state or government cannot function without the exercise of some
discretion by the officials. The administrative authorities have been confirmed two kinds of powers those are
1. Ministerial powers,
2. Discretion powers.
Ministerial powers to be exercised as per the strict rules and regulations prescribed or provided under the statute.

On the other hand discretionary powers for the exercise of which no guidelines have been provided. Discretionary powers means
choosing from amongst the various available alternatives but with reference to the rules of reason and justice and not according to
private opinion. The supreme court in a case U.P. state road transport corporation v/s mohd. Ismail. Exercise of discretion does
not mean according to the private openion but it should according to the rules of reason and justice.

In general courts should not interfere in the discretionary powers of administrators. Administrative authority may use this
discretionary powers for the welfare of the public/state or it may use for self needs it leads to a misuse of powers. In order to
prevent or curtail the misuse of discretionary powers of administrators at two stages.
• At the stage of delegation of discretionary powers

• At the stage of exercise of discretionary powers.

Control at the stage of delegation of discretion; generally statute/ law enacted by legislature confirms the discretionary powers
to administrative authorities. If the statute / law confirms vague and wide discretionary powers on administrative authority it may
be declared ultra virus under article 14 and 19 of Indian constitution.
 Administrative Discretion
• If any law conifers or authorizes administrative authorities to make rules in accordance with
their discretion affecting the rights of citizens. Court can also control by declaring those rules
as null and void.
Simple Meaning- the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation
• Justice Coke: discretion is science or understanding to discern between falsity and truth between
right and wrong between shadows and substances, between quity and colourable glasses and
pretenses and not to do according to their will and private affections
• De Smith- administrative discretion is a power to make a choice between alternative course action
• Frued – administrative discretion means the determination reached upon the basis of consideration
not entirely susceptible of proof of disproof
• K C Davis- administrative discretion is a power which gives a public authority a free hand to make
choice among possible courses of action or inaction
• Dr. Markose- administrative discretion means is a statutory power conferred on a public authority to
make choice our to available alternatives on considerations which are not possible to be declared
beforehand.
 Administrative Discretion
Why discretion
• Change of expectation- police state to welfare state
• Complexity and varying nature of problems
• New problems and lack of any previous experience to deal with them
• Changes circumstances from case to case forces to apply the same rule in different
perception
• Difficult to foresee all the future issues and have rules accordingly
Lord Acton- every power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely

Types of Discretion
Subjective : when the authority is empowered to set his own limits to determine the
criteria for decision. For example: if he thinks fit, if in his opinion, it is his deemed
opinion etc
Objective : where the statutes imposes ascertainable predetermined criteria with the
authority he must make his choice
For example Companies Act- authority can appoint inspection; if there is fraud
oppression- here the existence of act of fraud only gives the discretion to the
administrative authority.
 Administrative Discretion
Control at the stage of exercise of discretion; court can control the discretionary powers of administrators at the
stage of exercise of discretion in 3 circumstances.
• Failure to exercise discretion
• Excess or abuse of discretion
• Violation of fundamental rights
Failure to exercise of discretion arises
• Sub- delegation
• Acting under dictation
• Non application of mind
• Imposing fetters on discretion by self imposed rules of policy
Excess or abuse of discretion
• Leaving out relevant consideration
• Irrelevant consideration
• Violation of natural principles of justice
• Exceeding the jurisdiction
• Mixed consideration
• Improper purpose
• Unreasonable
• Malafide
• Colorable exercise
 FAILURE TO EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ARISES

• Sub-delegation : in Allingham v. Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and Ganpati Singhji v. State of
Ajmer, the sub-delegation of power was held to be bad. Likewise, in Sahni Silk Mills (P) Ltd. v. ESI Corpn.,
the parent Act enabled the corporation to delegate its power to recover damages to the Director General,
who, however, in turn sub-delegated the said power to Regional-Directors. Since there was no such
provision permitting the Director General to sub-delegate his power, the action was held to be bad.

• Acting under Dictation : in Orient Paper Mills v. Union of India, under the relevant statute, the Deputy
Superintendent was empowered to levy excise. Instead of deciding it independently, the Deputy
Superintendent ordered levy of excise in accordance with the directions issued by the Collector. The
Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the Deputy Superintendent.
In Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, investigation or affairs was ordered by the Chairman.
That action was challenged inter alia the ground that it was taken at the behest of the Finance Minister.
Holding the order legal and valid, the Court observed that the circumstances might create suspicion, but
suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof.
 FAILURE TO EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ARISES

• Non-application of mind : Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board, an order of investigation against
the petitioner company was passed by the Central Government. Under the Companies Act, 1956, the
Government was empowered to issue such order if, there are circumstances suggesting fraud on the part
of the management. It was held by the Supreme Court that it was necessary for the Central Government to
state the circumstances which led to the impugned action so that the same could be examined by the
Court.

• Imposing fetters on discretion by self imposed rules of policy

 Excess or abuse of discretion may be inferred from the following circumstances

• Acting without jurisdiction ; In R. v. Minister of Transport, even though the Minister had no power to
revoke the licence, he passed an order of revocation. The action was held ultra vires and without
jurisdiction.
Similarly, if the appropriate government has power to refer an "industrial dispute" to a tribunal for
adjudication, it cannot refer a dispute which is not an industrial dispute. Again, if a taxing authority imposes
tax on a commodity exempted under the Act, the action is without authority of law
• Exceeding Jurisdiction
An administrative authority must exercise the power within the limits of the statue and if it exceeds those
limits, the action will be held ultra vires. A question whether the authority acted within the limits of its
power or exceeded it can always be decided by a court.
For example, if an officer is empowered to grant a loan of Rs 10,000 in his discretion for a particular
purpose and if he grants a loan of Rs 20,000, he exceeds his power (jurisdiction) and the entire order is ultra
vires and void on that ground.
Pratabpore Company Ltd V. Cane Commissioner Of Bihar: supreme court quashed the orders of the cane
commissioner by which he had excluded 99 villages from the area reserved by him in favour of the
appellant sugarcane company under the sugarcane control order. The cane commissioner had been
dictated by the chief minister in this regard.

• Irrelevant Considerations : Ram Manohar Lohia V. State Of Bihar the petitioner was detained under DIR
1962 to prevent him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of law and order. But actual
power was given to detain on the ground of public order.
 Excess or abuse of discretion may be inferred from the following circumstances

• Leaving out Relevant Considerations: In Ashadevi v. Shivraj, an order of detention was passed against the detenu
under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA). The
order was based on the detenu's confessional statements made before the Customs authorities. But the said
confessional statements were subsequently retracted by the detenu before the order of detention. The Supreme Court
held that the question whether the earlier statements recorded were voluntary or not was a ‘vital’ fact which ought to
have been considered by the detaining authority before passing the order of detention. But if such retraction is an
afterthought, it will not vitiate subjective satisfaction.
Ranjit Singh V. Union Of India the production of a licenced manufacture of guns was reduced from 30 to 10 a
month.
• Mixed Considerations: Shibbanlal V. State Of UP a person was detained on the two grounds one is relevant and
another is irrelevant. Court held that to the extent of irrelevant grounds the detention is said to be void.
• Collateral purpose/Improper object: In Nalini Mohan v. Distt. Magistrate, the relevant statute empowered the
authority to rehabilitate the persons displaced from Pakistan as a result or communal violence. That power was
exercised to accommodate a person who had come from Pakistan on medical leave. The order was set aside.
• Hokum Chand V/S Union Of India the general manager, telephones Delhi disconnected the petitioners telephone
under Rule 422 of the telephone rules. The ground for disconnecteing the telephone was that it was being used for
illegal satta purpose. But the power was given only in the event of emergency. The order of disconnection was
quashed because it was made on a ground which was not relevant to rule 422
• Unreasonableness: In Air India v. Nergesh Meerza, a regulation framed by Air India empowering termination of
services of an Air Hostess on her first pregnancy was held to be extremely arbitrary, unreasonable, abhorrent to the
notions of civilized society and interfering with the ordinary course of human nature.
Dr. Kirti Lakhina V. State Of Karnataka state government had made domicility mandatory for admission to PG dental
and medical courses.
• Colourable Exercise of Power :
• Non-observance of Natural Justice:
• Mala fide or bad faith; State Of Punjab V. Gurdial Singh in this case respondents land was acquired under the land
acquisition Act. The intention was to take away land of particular person to vent the hostility of a local politician
and ex minister. It was held that the acquisition is void on the ground of mala fide
• Application of Mind to facts and circumstances- emperor v/s sibnath banerji (preventive detention order
issued by home secretary without applying mind)
• Acting under direction/ dictation- orient paper mills v/s Union of India ( the deputy superintendent was
empowered to levy excise. Instead tas levied as per the discretion of collector)
• Consideration of the factors of the individual case(self imposed fetters) keshavan bhaskaran v/s state of
kerala (SSLC marks card case 15 years- 2 years)
• Acting mechanically (non exercise of mind ) jaganath v/s state of Orissa the court held that the
discretionary powers were used very casually without due care and concern
• Sub delegation
• Leaving out relevant events/circumstances- hukam chand v/s union of inda ( discretion given to
disconnect any telephone for public emergency – disconnected illegal trading)
• Exceeding the limits of power/ ultra virus- CES corporation v/s workers union (discretion given to award
medical aid to employees – extended to family members)
• Discretion based on malice or malafide-m pratap singh v/s state of punjab ( civil surgeon on leave for
retirement planning – leave revoked suspended enquiry and terminated)
• Mixted considerations- state of orissa v/s bidyabhushan dismissed from service for several charges and
supreeme court held if any one such charge is valid to dismiss then there is no requirnments of all charges to
be looked upon
• Irrelevant considerations- Ashadevi v/s k shivaraj detained under COFEPOSA. Confession was made but
later retracted and authority hasnot recorded the confession whether voluntary or not
• Improper purpose – Nalini \mohan v/s district Magistrate ( discretion given rehabilitation of displace
persons from pakistan- rehagilitation provided to the one who came on medical leave
• Colorable exercise of power- Bangalore medical trust v/s muddappa ( land reserved for park given for
construction of private nursing home on instruction of chief minister)
• Violation of principle of natural justice

• Violation of fundamental rights:

• State Of West Bengal V. Anwar Ali Sarkar
• Ganga Ram Mool Chandani V. State Of Rajastan
• State Of AP V. G Ramakrishna
• Indian Council Of Legal Aid V. Bar Council Of India
• Bangalore Medical Trust V. Muddappa
• State Of Madras V. V. G. Rao
• Dwarka Prasad V. State Of UP
There are 2 controls over administrative actions
• Parliamentary control
• Judicial control
Parliamentary control; the administrative authorities are conferred wide administrative powers which are required to be controlled otherwise they will
become new despots. The administrative law aims to find out the ways and means to control the powers of the administrative authorities.
• Parliament has been given several powers for controlling the executive. Several provisions have been incorporated in the constitution so as to enable
the legislature to control the executive.
• President may be impeached by parliament under article 124 of Indian Constitution.
• The vice President may be removed from his office by Parliament
• Parliament may by law determine the qualifications for appointment as members of the finance commission.
• The ordinance promulgated by the president unere article 123 is required to be laid before both the houses of the parliament
• Proclamation of emergency under article 352 and proclamation of state emergency under article 356 is required to be laid before both houses of
parliament.
• The minister is responsible to parliament for the acts of the officers of its department
• Parliament can ask questions regarding the action of the department of ministers.
Judicial control; judiciary has been given wide powers for controlling the administrative actions. The judicial control may be discussed under the
following headings.
• Control under Constitutional Provisions
• Control under Statutory Provisions
• Control under Law of Equity
Control under constitutional provisions
• Writs :
Habeas corpus
Mandamus
Certiorari
Prohibition
Quo-warranto
• Special Leave to Supreme Court under Article 136 of Indian Constitution
• Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227
Control under statutory provisions
• Statutory Appeals
• Reference to the High Court or statement of case
Control under law of equity
• Injunctions
• Declarations
• Damages
 WRITS
Writs Origin Meaning
1. Habeas Corpus Latin You may have the body
2. Mandamus Latin We command
3. Prohibition English To stop/ forbid
4. Quo Warranto Latin By what authority
5. Certiorari Latin To be Certified
 Writ of Habeas Corpus
Writ of habeas corpus, is a Latin phrase, which can be literally translated as "We command that you have the
body". It means, you have the body and produce it before the Court. The object of this writ is to release a
person who is illegally detained. It secures the release of a person from illegal detention either in prison or
in private custody. According to law, no person shall be detained unlawfully. The Court can direct to have
the body of the person detained to be brought before it in order to ascertain whether the detention is legal or
illegal. If a person who is arrested is not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours from the time of
arrest, he will be entitled to be released on the writ of Habeas Corpus. It can be issued against any private
person or executive authority. The disobedience of this writ amounts to contempt of Court, and is
punishable.
Conditions:
• For this writ, following conditions must be fulfilled.
• There must be illegal detention of a person.
• The detention must be illegal at the time of filing the petition.
• The detention must be unwarranted by law.
 Writ of Habeas Corpus
Who can apply for writ of Habeas Corpus?

• A person who has been detained illegally,

• A prisoner himself whose detention is illegal, or
• Any person on behalf of the detainee/prisoner.

When writ of Habeas Corpus is not issued?

• If the detention has been made in accordance with law and procedure.

• Where the person against whom the writ is issued or the person who is detained is not within the jurisdiction
of the Court.
• If a person who has been imprisoned by a Court of law on a criminal charge.
• If the proceedings interfere with a proceeding for contempt by a Court of record or by Parliament.
 Writ of Habeas Corpus
• In A. D. M. Jabalpur v S. Shukla (1976, p.1207) case, popularly known as 'Habeas Corpus Case ', the
Court held that if the enforcement of Article 2 1 is suspended by the Presidential Order under Article 359,
the detenue shall not have right to file a writ petition challenging the legality of detention. However, after
44" amendment of the Constitution the rule passed in Habeas Corpus Case is no longer a good law.
According to the present position even the Presidential Order cannot suspend the right to life and liberty
under Article 2 1.
• In Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration (1978, p. 1575), the solitary confinement imposed on Sunil Batra
and Charles Sobhraj, who were under sentence of death was challenged as violative of Article 14,19,20 and
21 of the Constitution. The Court treated their letter as writ petition. The Court held that writ of Habeas
Corpus can not only be granted for releasing a person illegally detained but also it will be used for
protecting him from illtreatment inside jails.
• In Kanu Sanyal v District Magistrate, Darjeeling (1974, p.510), Kanu Sanyal, a top-ranking Naxalite
leader was arrested and detained without trial in Visakhapatnam jail. He challenged the validity of his
detention and filed a writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court issued necessary directions and held that the
production of the body of the person detained before the Court was not necessary for hearing and disposing
of the writ petition under Article 32.
• In Bhim Singh v State of J & K (1986, p.494), Bhim Singh, an MLA of State of J & K was wrongfully
arrested and detained in the police station and was prevented from attending the State Legislative Assembly.
The Court awarded a sum of Rs.50,000 to the petitioner as compensation for the violation of his
Constitutional right of personal liberty under Art. 21.
 Writ of Mandamus
• A writ of mandamus, which in Latin means "we command, or sometimes "we mandate", is the name of this
prerogative writ in the common law. It is issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government
officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly. Mandamus means 'the order'.
• Mandamus is an order by Supreme Court or High Courts to any public authority to do or not to do
something in the nature of public duty. It is issued against the persons or authorities who fail to perform
their mandatory duties. For the purpose of issuing writ of mandamus, the officer must have a pubic duty and
must fail to perform such duty. The applicant of this writ must also have right to compel the performance of
some duty cast upon the authority.
• In State of M. P v G C. Mandawara, (1954, p.493), it was held that a licensing officer has a duty to issue
licence to the persons who fulfil the necessary conditions. Despite the fulfilment of all the necessary
conditions by the applicant, if the licensing officer fails to issue licence, the aggrieved-applicant has a right
to seek the remedy through a writ of mandamus. The object of writ of Mandamus is to compel performance
of public duties prescribed by Statute.
 Writ of Mandamus
Conditions: For this writ, following conditions must exist. Writs as Remedies
• There must be public duty upon the respondent.
• The petitioner must have legal right to compel the performance of public duty (State of M. P. v G C. Mandawara, 1954,
p.493).
• Such duty must be mandatory duty cast by law.
• The petitioner must have demanded for the performance of such duty.
• The public authority must have failed to perform or refuse to perform the pubic duty (Saraswati hdustiial Syndicate Ltd. v
Union of India, 1975, p.46).
Against whom Mandamus is issued?
• Against public authorities and institutions.
• Against officers exercising public functions.
• Against Government and public corporations.
• In Gujarat State Financial Corporation v M/sLotus Hotel Pvt. Ltd. (1983, p.848) case, the Corporation established under
the State Financial Corporation Act, 195 1 had entered into an agreement with Lotus Hotels to provide finance on longterm
credit and failed to release the funds. The Court issued the writ of Mandamus and directed the Corporation to release the
funds as per agreement.
When writ of Mandamus is not issued?
• When the duty is merely discretionary in nature (State of M. P v Mandawara, 1954, p.493).
• Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued against private individuals or private organisations because they don't have public duty
(Barada Kanta v State of West Bengal, 1963, p.161).
• Writ of Mandamus cannot be granted to enforce a duty arising out of contract.(Bihar EGF Co-operative Society v Sipahi
Singh, 1977, p.2149).
• In Manjula v Direct06 Public Instructions (1952, p.344), the petitioner published a book namely 'Ama Ithihasa Gapa' and
filed a writ of Mandamus to compel the director, Public Instructions to include her book in the list of books approved for the
schools. The writ was not granted on the ground that the choice of the textbooks was a matter entirely left to the discretion of
the DPI and DPI was not under duty to include the petitioner's book in the approved list.
 Writ of Certiorari
It is an Order by the Supreme Court or the High Courts to an inferior Court to remove a suit from such inferior Court and
adjudicate upon the validity of the proceedings or to quash the Orders of the inferior Court. Writ of Certiorari can be
issued not only against any inferior Courts but also against a body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
This writ is issued under the supervisory or original jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction

Conditions these include the following

• There must be a want or excess of jurisdiction

• Principles of natural justice must be violated

• There must be an error of law on the face of the judicial record.

When can a writ of Certiorari be invoked or granted?

• Before the trial to prevent an excess or abuse of jurisdiction and remote case for trial to higher Court.
• After trial to quash an order which has been made without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural
justice.
In other words, whenever any body of persons having legal authority to determine questions affecting the rights of
subject and having the duty to act judicially, acts in excess of their legal authority, writ of certiorari can be granted.
 Writ of Certiorari
Who can apply for writ of Certiorari?
Any person whose fundamental right is violated can apply for writ of Certiorari.
Against whom writ of Certiorari is issued?
Inferior Courts, and A body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
Against whom writ of Certiorari cannot be issued?
Against a private individual or body of private persons (A. Ranga Reddy v General Managel; Co-op Electric
Supply Society Ltd, 1977, p.232).
When a writ of Certiorari cannot be granted?
• To remove ministerial acts.
• To remove or cancel executive acts.
• To declare an Act as unconstitutional or void.
In the case of Rafiq Khan v State of UP (1954, p.3) the Magistrate maintained the conviction of the accused
as passed by a Panchayat Adalat which is no1 authorised under Section 85 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act,
1947. Hence, the High Court quashed the conviction by a writ of certiorari.
In G Nageshwara Rao [Link]. R. ir: C (1959, p.308), the Secretary, APSRTC invited objections for
nationalisation of motor transport in the State. The petitioner who was running transport business filed his
objections, but the Secretary did not pay attention to them. Moreover, the secretary himself was the
adjudicating authority and thus violated the principles of natural justice. Hence, the Supreme Court issued
writ of Certiorari against the Secretary.
 Writ of Prohibition
Prohibition means 'to prevent'. Each Court is expected to act within the limits of their jurisdiction. A writ of
prohibition is issued to prevent an inferior Court or Tribunal from exceeding its jurisdiction, which is not
legally vested, or acting without jurisdiction or acting against the principles of natural justice. The writ of
Prohibition can be issued not only against the Courts but also against the authorities exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial functions.
In East India Commercial Co. v Collector of Customs (1962, p.1893) the Court compelled the inferior court to
keep itself within the limits of jurisdiction
Who can apply for the Writ of Prohibition?
• The person whose right is violated can apply for the writ of prohibition.
When can a Writ of Prohibition be granted?
• When the inferior Court or quasi-judicial authority exceeds its jurisdiction.
• When the inferior Court acts without lawful jurisdiction.
• When the inferior Court or quasi-judicial authority acts against the rule of natural justice.
• When there is an apparent error on the face of the judicial record.
When is Writ of Prohibition not issued?
• When the Court acts within its lawful jurisdiction.
• When the Court observes principles of natural justice
 Writ of Quo Warranto
Quo warranto means 'what is your authority?' It is an Order questioning the authority of a person holding a
public office. It is issued against the holder of a public office calling upon him to show with what authority
he holds such office. The object of this writ is to control the executive action in making appointments to
the public offices and also to protect the pubic from usurpers of public offices.
Conditions: These include the following.
• The office must be a public office.
• The office must be substantive in character with independent title.
• The respondent must not be legally qualified to hold the public office.
• The respondent must have held the office against the law.
Who can file Writ of Quo Warranto?
• Any member of the public can file writ of Quo Warranto, whether any right of such person has been
infringed or not (Venkataraya v Sivarama, 1965, p.491).
When Writ of Quo Warranto is not issued?
• When the office is a private office.
• When the holder of the office is qualified to hold that office.
• When the holder subsequently gets qualified for the office. When issue of writ becomes futile. It means if
the writ does not serve any purpose.
 Writ of Quo Warranto
• In Jamalpur Arya Samaj Sabha v Dr. D. Ram (1954, p.297), the member of the Working Committee of
the Bihar Arya Samaj Sabha held the office for more than the prescribed tenure. The High Court refused to
issue writ of quo warranto on the ground that it was a private association.
• In K. Bhima Raju v State of Andhra Pradesh (198 1, p.24), the Government pleader was appointed
against the rules. The petitioner filed a writ of Quo Warranto. The High Court quashed the appointment of
Government Pleader on the ground that the appointment was not made in accordance with rules.

• In Ishwar Chand Jain v High Court of P & H (1988, p.370), the appellant was posted asAdditiona1
District and Sessions Judge at Hissar. On happening of certain incidents the Bar Association passed a
resolution against the appellant, which resulted in his transfer from Hissar to Narnaul. Thereafter, High
Court conducted an inquiry and found the appellant's conduct was bad. Hence, the High Court resolved and
recommended to the State Government to terminate the appellant's service. The Supreme Court held that the
order of high court was liable to be set aside because the complaints against the appellant were made on
trifling matters without any justification.
 Special Leave to Supreme Court
Supreme Court of India has been given extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. By
virtue of this Article, the court can grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination,
sentence or order in any cause or matter, passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
There is no limit, as in other Articles where it is provided that an appeal can lie only from a judgment,
decree or final order. Even from interim orders, leave to appeal is permissible. Whereas under other
Articles, appeals lie to the Supreme Court from the High Courts, there is no such restriction in Article 136
and appeals lie from any court or tribunal in the territory of India. The only restriction imposed is contained
in sub-clause (2) of the Article. Article 136 reads as follows:
136. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court-
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave
to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or
made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgment, determination, sentence or order passed or made by
any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.“
• In the case of DC Mills v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1955), it was held by the court that as the supreme
court uses discretionary powers while granting special leave appeal under Article 136 of the constitution so
much power should be utilized moderately with due care that too only under certain exceptional cases.
• In the case of Pritam Singh v the State (1950), it was held by the court that the supreme court will only
decide about how to use its discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Indian constitution.
 Special Leave to Supreme Court
• In the case of Delhi Judicial Service Assn. v. State of Gujarat (1991), it was held that the supreme court has
got the powers to interfere in the decisions which were given by any court or tribunal in India which can be
called the supervisory jurisdiction of the supreme court over all those courts and tribunals (except tribunals
made for armed forces) within the territory of India.
• In the case of Union Carbide Corp. v. Union of India (1992), it was held that the supreme court has got the
power to transfer or discard any criminal proceedings which are pending before the Bhopal district court so
further the order of the criminal exemption which was granted to the union carbide was cancelled by the
court.
• In the case of Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai (2003), it was held by the court that even a private party can file
an appeal in the supreme court if there was any failure on the part of the high court while passing the order
of acquittal for the accused and there was no such appeal made by the state against such orders of the high
court.
• In the case of Ram Kala v. Deputy Director (1997), it was held by the court that a person needs to state the
reasons behind such delay in filing such an application and further as in this case the court was not satisfied
with the reasons which were given to the appellant for the delay of applying so the case was dismissed.
• In the case of Dev Singh v. Registrar, P and H High Court (1987) it was held by the court that the appeal
which was made before the supreme court was not related to judicial decisions so the case was dismissed.
• In the case of CK Daphtary v. OP Gupta (1971), it was held by the court that if any obstructing words made
by any person is related to the working of a judge then in such cases it will be contempt of a court and such
person will be punished for such misconduct.
• In the case of Delhi Judicial Services Association v. State of Gujarat (1991), it was held by the court that the
power of the supreme court to punish for contempt extends to the high court and the lower courts.
 Damages
• The term damages may be defined as the monetary compensation which is payable by the defaulting party to
the aggrieved party for the loss suffered by him. It can be granted by the Civil Courts as well as by Arbitral
Tribunals where parties agreed to submit their disputes to arbitration. The primary aim of damages is to
compensate the aggrieved party and to place him in the same position which he would have occupied had the
breach of contract not occurred. A contracting party who has suffered loss due to the breach of contract can
file a suit in a Civil Court or pray for an award from the Arbitral Tribunal seeking damages against the
defaulting party under the applicable provisions of law.
The damages can be of the following types:
1. Ordinary damages
2. Special Damages
3. Vindictive or Exemplary Damages
4. Nominal Damages
5. Damages for loss of reputation
6. Damages for inconvenience and discomfort

Hadley vs Baxendale.
 Injunction
• An injunction is an order issued by a court, at the suit of a party complainant, directed to a party defendant
in the action, or to a party made a defendant for that purpose, forbidding a person to do some act, or to
permit his servants or agents to do some act, which he is threatening or attempting to commit, or restraining
him in the continuance thereof, such act being unjust and inequitable, injurious to the plaintiff, and not such
as can be adequately redressed by an action fit law.
Definitions:
• An injunction is defined in Halsbury's Laws as : “A judicial process whereby a party is ordered to refrain
from doing or to do a particular act or thing.”
• Oxford dictionary meaning of word Injunction is “a Judicial warning or a Judicial order restraining a person
from an action or compelling a person to carry out a certain act.”
Types of Injunctions
1. Temporary Injunction
2. Perpetual/Permanent Injunction
3. Mandatory
4. Directory

Conditions
• Prima Facie Case
• Irreparable Injury
• Balance of Convenience
 Declaration
Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963
• Any person entitled to any legal character or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any
person denying, or interested in denying, his title to such character or right, and the Court may in its
discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any
relief. Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further
relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.
Person claiming declaratory relief must show that he is entitled
• to a legal character, or
• to a right as to property, and that
• the defendant has denied or is interested to deny his title to such character or right
• he has sought all reliefs in the suit
 Vicarious liability
a) Respondeat Superior
Respondeat Superior means “Let the Principal be Liable”. A legal doctrine, most
commonly used in tort, that holds an employer or principal legally responsible for
the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such acts occur within the scope of the
employment or agency. Typically when Respondeat Superior is invoked,
a plaintiff will look to hold both the employer and the employee liable. As such, a
court will generally look to the doctrine of joint and several liability when
assigning damages.
b) Qui facit per alium facit per se
Qui facit per alium facit per se is a Latin legal term that means, “He who acts through
another does the act himself.” It is a fundamental legal maxim of the law of agency. It
is a maxim often stated in discussing the liability of employer for the act of employee
in terms of vicarious liability.”
c) Socialization of Compensation
The principal will be liable to compensate for the negligence act or any omission
committed by their servants. This principle defines the compensation for the liable
principal.
• Article 300 reads as follows:

1) The Government of India may sue or may be sued by the name of the Union of
India and the Government of a State may sue or may be sued by the name of the State
and may, subject to any provisions which may be made be Act of Parliament or of the
Legislature of such State enacted by virtue of powers conferred by this Constitution,
sue or be sued in relation to their respective affairs in the like cases as Dominion on
India and the corresponding Provinces or the corresponding Indian States might have
sued or been sued if this Constitution had not been enacted.

2) If at the commencement of this Constitution —

a) any legal proceedings are pending to which the Dominion of India is a party, the
Union of India shall be deemed to be substituted for the Dominion is those
proceedings; and

b) any legal proceedings are pending to which a Provinces or an Indian State is a

party, the corresponding State shall he deemed to be substituted for the Province or
the Indian State in those proceedings.
• In peninsular and oriental steam navigation co. v. secretary of state for India the court held that the accident
of Plaintiff due to the negligence of Government Servants. The case is also significant apart from State
liability it also showcased the distinction between sovereign and nonsovereign functions of state.
• Saheli v. Commissioner of Police The State was held liable for the death of nine year old child by Police
assault and beating. Delhi Administration was ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 75000/
• Another landmark judgement was Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa4 awarding compensation to the
petitioner for the death of her son in police custody.
• Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar the petitioner was acquitted by the Court of Sessions on June 3, 1968 but was
released from the jail more than 14 years thereafter, on October 16, 1982
• In Kasturi lal [Link] of UP
• Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir
• In Smt. Kumari v. State of Tamil Nadu, six year old son of the appellant died as a result of falling in a ten
feet deep sewerage tank in the city of Madras. This act was a violation of Article 21 of Constitution
• In Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. State of Bihar,1 about 600 to 700 poor peasants and landless
persons had collected for a peaceful meeting. Without any previous warning by the police or provocation on
the part of those collected, the Superintendent of Police surrounded the gathering with the help of police
force and opened fire, as a result of which at least 21 persons, including children died and many more were
injured. The Peoples Union of Democratic Rights (PUDR) filed an application before the Supreme Court
under Article 32 of Constitution, claiming compensation for the victims of the firing.
 Doctrine of Estoppel

According to the doctrine of estoppel there are certain facts which the parties are prohibited from proving,
Estoppel is a principle of law by which a person is held bound by the representation made by him or arising
out of his conduct. Estoppel has been dealt in sections 115 to 117 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Meaning
When one person has, by his declaration or by his act, intentionally caused or permitted another person to
believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in
any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.

Section 115
Section 116: Estopple of tenant and of licensee of person in possession
Section 117: Estopple of acceptor of Bill of exchange, Bailee and licensee

Cases:
Robertson V/S Minister Of Pensions
Pannalal V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Bhandara
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills V/S State Of UP
Union Of India V/S Godfery Phillips India Ltd
Pawan Alloys V/S UP State Electricity Board
Secretary Of State V/S G T Sarin And Co.
 Doctrine of Proportionality

It basically means that the action/decision taken as a result of an individual’s act should not be extreme to the
latter and actually be in proportion to it.
The Doctrine become applicable in the field of administrative law in 2 situations:-
1. Where an administrative action invades fundamental rights, courts make strict scrutiny of the administrative
action and go into the question of the correctness of the choices made by the authority.
2. Where a question of quantum of punishment imposed by the administrative authority is involved. Courts
follow the principle that though the quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction of the administrative
authority, arbitrariness must be avoided.

• Ex Naik Sardar Sing V/S Union Of India: an army officer purchased 11 bottles of rum but as per section
63, 71 and 72 of Army Act 1950 he .is permitted to take only 4 bottles of rum. He was sentenced for 3
months rigorous imprisonment and also dismissed from the service.
• Ranjit Thakur V.S Union Of India: refusing to eat the food Court Martial proceedings were initiated and a
sentence of one year rigorous punishment was imposed. He was also dismissed from service, with added
disqualification that he would be unfit for future employments.
• Hind Construction Co. v/s Workman: some workers remained absent from duty treating a particular day as
holiday. They were dismissed from service.
 Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation

The term legitimate expectation was first used by Lord Denning in 1969 and from that time it has assumed the
position of significant doctrines of public law in almost all jurisdictions.
This concept developed by the SC with a view to check arbitrary exercise of powers by the administrative
bodies.
When a person having legitimate expectation of being treated in a particular way by the administrative authority
that Legitimate expectation arise as a result of promise, representation, practice or policy made, adopted or
announced by or on behalf of government or public authority.
Food Corporation Of India V/S Kamadhenu Cattle Feed Industries: food corporation of india invited
tenders for sale of stocks of damaged food grains and respondent was highest bidder but food corporation of
india felt that respondent bid was inadequate hence all tenders were invited for negotioation. Respondent
was not participated. Later tender was sanctiond to another person. Respondent filed a case. Supreme court
held that it is not violation of legitimate expectation because respondent was also invited in negotiation.
• in the State of Kerala v. K.G. Madhavan Pillai (AIR 1989 SC 49). the government had issued a sanction to
the respondents to open a new unaided school and to upgrade the existing ones. However, after 15 days a
direction was issued to keep the sanction in abeyance. This order was challenged on the ground of violation
of principles of natural justice. The court held that the sanction order created a legitimate expectation in the
respondent which was violated by the second order without following the principles of natural justice,
which is sufficient to vitiate an administrative order.
• National Building Construction Corporation V. Raghunathan: respondent was appointed in CPWD. He
went on deputation to NBCC in iraq while deputation NBCC granted him foreign allowance of 125% on the
basic pay, mean while basic pay of CPWD was revised. Now he claim both 125% and revised basic pay of
CPWD. It was rejected by NBCC approached the court. The court held that no legitimate expectation.