.

Question 1: Dismissal of a Workman by the Manager Who Conducted the

Inquiry

Facts:

‘A’, a workman in ‘X’ factory, was involved in an incident where he assaulted the factory
manager. The manager, being the victim, himself conducted the domestic enquiry into the
incident and subsequently passed an order of dismissal against ‘A’. The workman challenged the
dismissal on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and fairness.

Issues:

• Whether the manager, being the aggrieved party, could conduct the enquiry against the
workman?
• Does such an enquiry violate the principles of natural justice?

Relevant Case Law:

• Ridge v. Baldwin, (1964) AC 40 – Reinforced the necessity of observing natural justice

even in administrative decisions.
• Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC, AIR 1959 SC 308 – The person who hears must
also decide; no one can be a judge in his own cause.
• A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 – Administrative decisions affecting
rights must conform to natural justice; bias renders such decisions void.

Provisions Involved:

• Principles of Natural Justice:

o Nemo judex in causa sua (No one should be a judge in their own cause)
o Audi alteram partem (Right to be heard)
• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Provides procedural safeguards for disciplinary actions
against workmen.

Decision:

The enquiry conducted by the manager, who was the aggrieved party in the incident, is clearly in
violation of the principles of natural justice. A person cannot act as a judge in his own cause as it
gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The Supreme Court has consistently held that
justice must not only be done but also appear to be done. Therefore, the dismissal order is liable
to be set aside, and a fresh enquiry should be conducted by an impartial authority.

1
Question 2: Discretionary Refusal of Permit by District Magistrate

Facts:

A state law authorized Deputy Commissioners to frame rules for sanitation at fairs. One such
rule required individuals to obtain a permit from the District Magistrate to hold events. The
Magistrate had wide discretionary power to grant or refuse permits. Mr. Vijay was refused a
permit without clear reasons, and he challenged the rule and the refusal.

Issues:

• Whether the delegation of discretionary power to the District Magistrate is

constitutionally valid?
• Whether Mr. Vijay’s fundamental rights were violated due to unguided discretion?

Relevant Case Law:

• State of Punjab v. Khan Chand, AIR 1974 SC 543 – Discretionary powers must be
exercised with guidance; otherwise, they are unconstitutional.
• Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. State of UP, AIR 1954 SC 224 – Held that unguided
discretionary power to grant licences violates Article 14.
• Himmatlal Harilal Mehta v. State of M.P., AIR 1954 SC 403 – Discretion must not be
arbitrary and should have legal standards.

Provisions Involved:

• Article 14 of the Constitution – Right to equality and equal protection of the law.
• Doctrine of Reasonableness – Administrative discretion must be reasonable and non-
arbitrary.

Decision:

The provision that gives the District Magistrate absolute discretion to grant or deny a permit
without any guidelines is arbitrary and violates Article 14. Mr. Vijay’s challenge is likely to
succeed, as the rule suffers from excessive delegation and lacks procedural safeguards. The
refusal of the permit, without reasons or opportunity to be heard, further violates the principles of
natural justice.

Question 3: Transfer of Criminal Cases to Special Courts

2
Facts:

State ‘X’ established Special Courts under a statute for speedier trials and transferred certain
pending cases from regular criminal courts to these Special Courts. Yash, whose case was among
those transferred, challenged the legality of the transfer, claiming a violation of his right to a fair
trial.

Issues:

• Whether transferring pending cases to Special Courts violates the right to a fair trial?
• Whether the establishment of Special Courts infringes on constitutional principles?

Relevant Case Law:

• A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, AIR 1988 SC 1531 – Held that a person has a right to be
tried by the court established under the law applicable at the time of the offence.
• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 – Speedy trial is a component of
Article 21.
• S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 386 – Tribunals must meet basic
judicial standards.

Provisions Involved:

• Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution – Right to equality and protection of life and
personal liberty, including fair trial.
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Provides procedures and jurisdiction for criminal trials.

Decision:

The creation of Special Courts is not unconstitutional per se. However, the transfer of cases must
be in accordance with the statutory provisions and must not violate the accused’s rights. If
Yash’s right to a fair trial or procedural safeguards is compromised, the transfer can be
challenged. If not, the transfer will be valid in the interest of expeditious justice.

Question 4: Selection Committee Member Also Selected

Facts:

The Central Government constituted a selection committee for promotions. One of the
committee members was also a candidate. Though he did not sit when his own case was
considered, he was selected. An unsuccessful candidate challenged the selection process.

3
Issues:

• Can a member of the selection committee be a candidate for promotion?

• Does this violate the principles of natural justice and fairness?

Relevant Case Law:

• A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 – Held that administrative actions
affecting rights must be free from bias; no person should be judge and candidate.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 – Fair procedure is essential under
Article 21.

Provisions Involved:

• Article 14 of the Constitution – Equality before the law.

• Principles of Natural Justice – Especially the rule against bias (Nemo judex in causa sua).

Decision:

Even if the member did not participate when his own case was discussed, his presence in the
committee creates an apprehension of bias. This violates natural justice. The selection process
stands vitiated, and the unsuccessful candidate’s challenge is likely to succeed.

Question 5: Closure of Shops by 7 PM by Municipal Order

Facts:

A Municipal Corporation issued an order requiring all businesses to close by 7 PM. The order
applied uniformly within its jurisdiction. An individual (‘A’) challenged this order, claiming it
infringed on his right to carry on business.

Issues:

• Whether the municipal corporation has the authority to impose such restrictions?
• Whether the order violates the fundamental right to trade under Article 19(1)(g)?

Relevant Case Law:

• Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai, AIR

1986 SC 1205 – Upheld reasonable restrictions by local bodies.
• State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 – Reasonableness of restrictions is
subject to judicial review.

4
Provisions Involved:

• Article 19(1)(g) – Right to carry on trade or profession.

• Article 19(6) – Reasonable restrictions in the interest of general public.

Decision:

If the restriction serves public interest such as law and order, safety, or traffic control, and is not
arbitrary, it is a valid exercise of municipal power. The order is likely to be upheld as a
reasonable restriction under Article 19(6).

Question 6: Delegation under Section 60 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1932

Facts:

Section 60 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 empowers the government to exempt any
registered society from any provision of the Act by general or special order. This delegation of
power was challenged as being excessive and unconstitutional.

Issues:

• Whether Section 60 constitutes excessive delegation of legislative powers?

• Is such a provision violative of the doctrine of separation of powers or Article 14?

Relevant Case Law:

• Re: Delhi Laws Act Case, AIR 1951 SC 332 – Parliament can delegate administrative
and procedural matters but cannot delegate essential legislative functions without
guidelines.
• A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710 – Held that uncanalised and unguided
discretion violates Article 14.
• State of Punjab v. Khan Chand, AIR 1974 SC 543 – Uncontrolled power of exemption is
unconstitutional.

Provisions Involved:

5
 • Doctrine of Excessive Delegation
• Article 14 of the Constitution – Right to equality before the law.

Decision:

The provision gives wide and unguided discretionary power to the government, which can result
in arbitrary classification and exemption. Therefore, unless there are procedural safeguards or
criteria laid down for the exercise of such power, the provision may be held unconstitutional as
excessive delegation and violative of Article 14.

Question 7: Delegation of Ministerial Hearing to Secretary

Facts:

A Minister under the relevant Act was empowered to hear parties and pass final orders. The
Minister delegated the hearing to his Secretary, who conducted the hearing and submitted a
report. The Minister, based on that report, passed the final order. The affected party challenged
this delegation.

Issues:

• Can a Minister delegate his quasi-judicial function of hearing to another authority?

• Does such delegation violate the principles of natural justice?

Relevant Case Law:

• Gullapalli Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC, AIR 1959 SC 308 – The authority who hears
must also decide; otherwise, it violates natural justice.
• Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 818 – Reiterated need for
procedural fairness in administrative action.

Provisions Involved:

• Principles of Natural Justice – Rule of “he who hears must decide.”

6
 • Doctrine of Delegatus Non Potest Delegare – A delegate cannot further delegate unless
expressly authorized.

Decision:

The delegation of hearing to the Secretary is improper. The hearing function involves applying
judicial mind and cannot be delegated unless the statute expressly allows it. The order is vitiated
by procedural impropriety and is liable to be set aside.

Question 8: Retrospective Rule Making by Central Government

Facts:

A central statute conferred rule-making power to the Central Government. Using this power, the
government made certain rules and gave them retrospective effect. This retrospective operation
was challenged.

Issues:

• Whether the rule-making authority includes the power to make rules with retrospective
effect?
• Are such rules constitutionally valid?

Relevant Case Law:

• Mahabir Vegetable Oils v. State of Haryana, AIR 2006 SC 1906 – Delegated legislation
cannot operate retrospectively unless the parent statute authorizes it.
• Income Tax Officer v. M.C. Ponnoose, AIR 1970 SC 385 – Held that subordinate
legislation cannot be retrospective unless expressly allowed.

Provisions Involved:

• Doctrine of Delegated Legislation

7
 • General Clauses Act, 1897 – Sections 21 and 23 deal with the scope and manner of rule-
making.

Decision:

The Central Government cannot make retrospective rules unless the parent statute expressly
provides for such power. If the rule is retrospective without statutory backing, it is ultra vires and
void. The challenge will succeed.

Question 9: Unguided Discretion to Police Commissioner to Permit Public

Meetings

Facts:

A statutory provision gave unguided discretion to the Police Commissioner to grant or refuse
permission to hold public meetings on public streets. The constitutionality of this provision was
challenged.

Issues:

• Whether the provision violates the right to free speech and assembly under the
Constitution?
• Whether unguided discretionary power is violative of Article 14?

Relevant Case Law:

• Kameshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 1166 – Restrictions on public

meetings must be reasonable.
• State of Madras v. V.G. Row, AIR 1952 SC 196 – Arbitrary power without guidelines is
unconstitutional.
• Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299 – Rule of law must prevail; arbitrariness
is antithetical to Article 14.

Provisions Involved:

8
 • Article 14 – Equality before the law.
• Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) – Freedom of speech and right to assemble peacefully.
• Article 19(2) and 19(3) – Permissible grounds for imposing restrictions.

Decision:

A provision granting absolute discretion to the Police Commissioner, without any checks or
guidelines, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19. The law is liable to be struck down or
read down by the courts to include procedural safeguards.

Question 10: State Adoption of Laws of Another State

Facts:

A State enactment authorized the State Government to adopt and apply the existing or future
laws of another State in its territory. This provision was challenged as unconstitutional.

Issues:

• Whether the State Legislature can delegate law-making to another State?

• Does this constitute excessive delegation of legislative power?

Relevant Case Law:

• Re: Delhi Laws Act Case, AIR 1951 SC 332 – Essential legislative functions cannot be
delegated.
• Rajnarain Singh v. Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, AIR 1954 SC 569 –
Adoption of laws of another body permissible only if guided and limited.

Provisions Involved:

• Doctrine of Excessive Delegation

• Article 245 and 246 of the Constitution – Distribution of legislative powers.

9
Decision:

The delegation of legislative power to adopt the laws of another State is unconstitutional unless it
is limited, controlled, and guided. Such adoption of “future laws” is especially violative of the
doctrine of separation of powers. The provision is liable to be struck down.

Question 11: Change in Land Allotment Policy

Facts:

The government initially announced a policy of allotment of land to co-operative housing

societies based on seniority in registration. Later, a new office memorandum with different
guidelines was issued. An aggrieved applicant challenges the denial of allotment based on the
initial policy.

Issues:

• Whether the government can alter its policy unilaterally without notice?
• Does the change violate principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation?

Relevant Case Law:

• Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies, AIR 1968 SC 718 – Recognized the doctrine
of promissory estoppel against the government.
• Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 155 – Held that
the change in policy without justification violates the legitimate expectation of applicants.
• M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P., AIR 1997 SC 329 – Policy changes must not be
arbitrary or unreasonable.

Provisions Involved:

• Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel

• Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
• Article 14 – Protection against arbitrary state action.

10
Decision:

The applicant may succeed if it can be proved that the earlier policy created a legitimate
expectation or promise, and the change was arbitrary or without justification. The government
cannot act capriciously in altering policies that affect substantive rights.

Question 12: Incomplete Publication of Rules

Facts:

The Parent Act required that the rules must be published both in the Official Gazette and in a
widely circulated Tamil Nadu newspaper. The rules were only published in the Gazette but not in
the newspaper. The validity of the rules was challenged.

Issues:

• Whether non-publication in the newspaper renders the rules invalid?

• Does procedural non-compliance vitiate the delegated legislation?

Relevant Case Law:

• Harla v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1951 SC 467 – Held that laws must be made known to
the public to be enforceable.
• State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722 – Publication is a must
unless excluded by statute.
• B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1987 SC 1059 – Rules must be published as
required for them to have legal force.

Provisions Involved:

• Principles of Natural Justice (Right to Know Law)

• General Clauses Act, 1897 – Regarding the commencement of rules.
• Relevant provision of the Parent Act prescribing dual publication.

11
Decision:

The rules are invalid due to non-compliance with mandatory publication procedures. Delegated
legislation that fails to comply with the conditions of its validity under the parent Act is ultra
vires and unenforceable.

Question 13: Delegation of Loan-Taking Power by City Corporation

Facts:

The Central Government delegated power to the State to take loans from ADB. The State further
delegated this power to city corporations. The corporation borrowed money and imposed a self-
assessment tax scheme. Citizens challenged the legality of the sub-delegation.

Issues:

• Whether the State Government can further delegate powers received from the Centre?
• Is the principle of “delegatus non potest delegare” violated?

Relevant Case Law:

• A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710 – Delegated legislation must operate
within the framework of the parent authority.
• Director General of ESI v. T. Abdul Rasak, AIR 1996 SC 2292 – Sub-delegation without
express authority is invalid.
• Gwalior Rayon v. Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax, AIR 1974 SC 1660 – Sub-delegation
must be clearly permitted by statute.

Provisions Involved:

• Doctrine of Delegatus Non Potest Delegare

• Relevant financial and municipal statutes governing delegation.

12
Decision:

Unless the original delegation by the Central Government permitted sub-delegation, the State
Government cannot delegate further to city corporations. Hence, the action is ultra vires and
liable to be quashed.

Question 14: Delegation to Department of Atomic Energy

Facts:

The Central Government delegated authority to the Department of Atomic Energy to decide
issues regarding the setting up of a nuclear plant. The delegation was challenged on the ground
that such policy decisions must rest with the government.

Issues:

• Can the government delegate decision-making on technical matters?

• Does the nature of the subject justify special delegation?

Relevant Case Law:

• D.K. Trivedi v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1986 SC 1323 – Technical matters can be left to
expert bodies.
• A.K. Roy v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 710 – Technical discretion is justified if the
parent act permits it.
• P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2002 SC 1856 – Policy implementation
can be delegated.

Provisions Involved:

• Doctrine of Delegated Legislation

• Relevant provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and administrative law doctrines.

Decision:

13
Given the technical complexity of nuclear energy projects, delegation to the concerned
department is permissible, provided the parent act permits it. Courts are likely to uphold such
delegation unless it is arbitrary or unreasonable.

Question 15: Denial of Import Licence under Export Promotion Scheme

Facts:

A Central Government notification allowed exporters to import raw materials equal to 100% of
the value of exports. A trader who exported goods worth Rs. 2 crores applied for a licence, which
was denied. He challenged the denial in court.

Issues:

• Whether denial of the import licence is arbitrary?

• Is the doctrine of promissory estoppel applicable against the government?

Relevant Case Law:

• Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies, AIR 1968 SC 718 – The government is bound
by its representations.
• Motilal Padampat v. State of U.P., AIR 1979 SC 621 – Promissory estoppel is
enforceable against the government unless contrary to law.
• Kasinka Trading v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 722 – Estoppel does not apply where
overriding public interest exists.

Provisions Involved:

• Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel

• Article 14 – Protection against arbitrary action.

Decision:

14
If no public interest or statutory change justifies the denial, then refusal to grant licence despite
earlier notification is arbitrary and attracts promissory estoppel. The court is likely to quash the
denial and direct issuance of the licence.

Question: Change in Land Allotment Policy

Facts:

The government announced a land allotment policy based on seniority in registration for co-
operative housing societies. Later, an office memorandum introduced new guidelines. An
applicant denied allotment under the new policy challenged the action.

Issues:

1. Can the government alter policy retrospectively or arbitrarily?

2. Does this breach legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel?

Relevant Case Law:

• Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies (AIR 1968 SC 718): Established promissory
estoppel against the government.
• Navjyoti Co-op. Group Housing Society v. Union of India (AIR 1993 SC 155): Change
in policy without justification violates legitimate expectation.
• M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P. (1997) 7 SCC 592: Policy change should not be
arbitrary or unreasonable.

Provisions:

• Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel

• Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
• Article 14 of the Constitution

Decision:

15
If the applicant relied on the original policy, the abrupt change may be held invalid. The court is
likely to favour the applicant based on legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel.

Question: Incomplete Publication of Rules

Facts:

The Parent Act required rules to be published in the Official Gazette and a Tamil Nadu
newspaper. The rules were only gazetted. The validity was challenged.

Issues:

1. Is non-compliance with the dual publication requirement fatal to the rule’s validity?

Relevant Case Law:

• Harla v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1951 SC 467): Unpublished law is unenforceable.

• B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1987 SC 1059): Mandatory publication
required for enforceability.

Provisions:

• Parent Act publication requirements

• Principle of natural justice – public right to know the law

Decision:

Rules not published in accordance with statutory requirements are invalid. The challenge would
succeed.

Question: Delegation of Loan-Taking Power

16
Facts:

The Centre allowed the State to borrow from the ADB. The State delegated this to city
corporations, which imposed a tax. Citizens challenged this.

Issues:

1. Can delegated power be sub-delegated without express provision?

Relevant Case Law:

• Gwalior Rayon v. Asst. Commissioner (AIR 1974 SC 1660): Sub-delegation must be

authorized.
• Director General of ESI v. T. Abdul Rasak (AIR 1996 SC 2292): Unauthorized sub-
delegation invalid.

Provisions:

• Delegatus non potest delegare (delegate cannot sub-delegate)

Decision:

Unless expressly allowed, sub-delegation is ultra vires. The corporation’s action is likely to be
struck down.

Question: Delegation to Department of Atomic Energy

Facts:

The Central Government delegated technical decision-making for nuclear projects to the
Department of Atomic Energy. This was challenged.

17
Issues:

1. Is such specialized delegation valid?

Relevant Case Law:

• D.K. Trivedi v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1986 SC 1323): Technical decisions can be
delegated to experts.
• A.K. Roy v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 710): Specialized subjects justify expert-based
delegation.

Provisions:

• Doctrine of permissible delegation

• Atomic Energy Act provisions

Decision:

Delegation of technical tasks to a specialized department is justified and valid.

Question: Denial of Import Licence Under Export Scheme

Facts:

Govt. notified that exporters could import materials equal to the value of exports. Trader
exported Rs. 2 crores worth goods and was denied import licence.

Issues:

1. Is the denial of licence arbitrary?

2. Can promissory estoppel apply?

18
Relevant Case Law:

• Union of India v. Anglo Afghan Agencies (AIR 1968 SC 718): Notification creates
enforceable expectation.
• Motilal Padampat v. State of U.P. (AIR 1979 SC 621): Promissory estoppel applies to
government unless against law/public interest.
• Kasinka Trading v. Union of India (AIR 1995 SC 722): Govt. not bound where
overriding public interest is shown.

Provisions:

• Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel

• Article 14

Decision:

If denial is without lawful justification, it violates promissory estoppel and is liable to be

quashed.

Question: Passport Impounded Without Reason

Facts:

The passport of a journalist was impounded by the police commissioner in “public interest.” He
refused to furnish reasons for the impoundment.

Issues:

1. Is the refusal to furnish reasons valid under law?

2. Can the fundamental right to travel be curtailed without due process?

Relevant Case Law:

19
 • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597): Refusal to provide reasons
violates principles of natural justice.
• Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam (AIR 1967 SC 1836): Right to travel abroad
is part of Article 21.
• A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150): Administrative actions must observe
natural justice.

Provisions:

• Article 21 of the Constitution

• Section 10(3)(c) of the Passport Act, 1967 (impounding in public interest)

Decision:

While the passport can be impounded for public interest, refusal to provide reasons is unjustified.
Action can be quashed for violating natural justice and Article 21.

Question: Expulsion of Students Without Cross-Examination

Facts:

Two students were expelled for misbehaving with girls. They were not allowed to cross-examine
the complainants.

Issues:

1. Does denial of cross-examination violate natural justice?

2. Can disciplinary action be upheld without procedural fairness?

Relevant Case Law:

• Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (AIR 1978 SC 851): Natural justice
is part of administrative law.

20
 • State of Kerala v. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (AIR 1977 SC 1627): Right to cross-examine is
essential for fair hearing.
• Hira Nath Mishra v. Rajendra Medical College (AIR 1973 SC 1260): Cross-examination
not always mandatory but fairness must be ensured.

Provisions:

• Principles of natural justice – audi alteram partem

Decision:

The action is vitiated for lack of fair hearing. Students can succeed if the institution did not
ensure even minimum procedural safeguards.

Question: IFS Candidate on Selection Board

Facts:

Mr. N was a candidate and also a member of the IFS selection board. He recused himself during
his consideration. He was selected.

Issues:

1. Does his position on the board create a conflict of interest?

2. Is the selection vitiated by bias?

Relevant Case Law:

• A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150): Participation in the selection process
creates a likelihood of bias.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597): Fairness in decision-making is a
constitutional mandate.

21
Provisions:

• Nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in his own cause)

Decision:

Even though he recused, the perception of bias is enough to vitiate the process. Selection is liable
to be struck down.

Question: University Cancelled Exam Candidature Without Notice

Facts:

A student was allowed to write the LLB exam. Later, the university cancelled his candidature for
shortage of attendance without notice.

Issues:

1. Is such cancellation valid without a hearing?

Relevant Case Law:

• Ridge v. Baldwin (1964 AC 40): Administrative actions affecting rights require a

hearing.
• State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei (AIR 1967 SC 1269): Even administrative
actions need due process.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597): Fair procedure is part of Article
21.

Provisions:

• Natural justice – audi alteram partem

• Article 14 and 21

22
Decision:

Action is arbitrary and in violation of natural justice. The student is entitled to relief.

Question: Enquiry Officer Gave Evidence Against Workman

Facts:

In a departmental enquiry against ‘A’, enquiry officer ‘B’ gave evidence against ‘A’ after a
witness turned hostile. He then passed the dismissal order.

Issues:

1. Can the enquiry officer become a witness and then pass an order?
2. Is the enquiry valid?

Relevant Case Law:

• State of U.P. v. Mohammad Sharif (AIR 1982 SC 937): Enquiry officer must be
unbiased.
• Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen (AIR 1963 SC 1719): Fair hearing is mandatory in
disciplinary action.
• Ridge v. Baldwin (1964 AC 40): Decision-maker must be impartial.

Provisions:

• Principles of natural justice – rule against bias

Decision:

The enquiry stands vitiated as the officer cannot act as a judge and witness. ‘A’ has valid
grounds to challenge the dismissal.

23
Question: Municipality Misusing Land Acquisition Power

Facts:

Municipality acquired land for street widening but sold it at a higher price to cover budget
deficit. The action was challenged.

Issues:

1. Can acquired land be used for purposes other than public interest?

Relevant Case Law:

• State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh (AIR 1952 SC 252): Public purpose is essential in
acquisition.
• Bangalore Development Authority v. R. Hanumaiah (2005) 12 SCC 508: Deviating from
public purpose makes acquisition mala fide.

Provisions:

• Land Acquisition Act – Section 4 (public purpose)

• Article 300A (right to property)

Decision:

Selling land for budgetary shortfall is not a public purpose. The court may quash the acquisition.

Question: Locus Standi of Public Organization to Protect Adivasis

Facts:

24
A public spirited organization seeks to prevent the State Government from evicting adivasis from
forest lands, which are their habitat and livelihood source. The State questions their right to file
the writ petition.

Issues:

1. Does a public-spirited body have the locus standi to file a writ petition on behalf of
affected people?
2. Can eviction without rehabilitation violate fundamental rights?

Relevant Case Law:

• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149): Recognized liberal locus standi for
public interest litigation.
• Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (AIR 1984 SC 802): PIL allowed for
protection of bonded labourers.
• Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. (AIR 1985 SC 652):
Environmental rights and tribal rights protected through PIL.
• Samatha v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) 8 SCC 191: Upheld tribal rights over land.

Provisions:

• Article 21 (Right to life with dignity)

• Article 14 (Right to equality)
• Article 226 (Power of High Courts to issue writs)

Decision:

Yes, the organization has locus standi to file a PIL. The court will entertain the petition to protect
the constitutional and human rights of adivasis.

Question: Locus Standi of a Taxpayer to Prevent Public Fund Misuse

Facts:

25
A taxpayer files a writ petition in the High Court to prevent misappropriation of public funds
under a social welfare scheme. The government challenges his standing.

Issues:

1. Can an individual taxpayer approach the court for administrative misuse of public funds?
2. Is locus standi extended to such cases?

Relevant Case Law:

• Common Cause v. Union of India (AIR 1996 SC 3081): Court accepted PIL against
misuse of public resources.
• Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary (AIR 1993 SC 892): PIL must serve public interest.
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (AIR 1982 SC 149): Any public-spirited person can
approach courts in public interest.

Provisions:

• Article 226
• Doctrine of Public Accountability
• Rule of Law (implied in Article 14)

Decision:

Yes, the taxpayer has locus standi. Courts recognize public interest petitions when there is
misuse of government funds impacting the collective welfare.

Bonus Question: Commissioner Acted on Collector’s Directions

Facts:

The Excise Commissioner, under a statute with discretionary powers, levied duty based on the
District Collector’s direction. The action is challenged for lack of independent discretion.

26
Issues:

1. Is delegation of discretion to another authority without exercise of mind valid?

2. Was there failure to exercise discretion?

Relevant Case Law:

• Commr. of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16): Authority must apply its
mind independently.
• R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Fire Brigades Union (1995 2
AC 513): Discretion must be exercised by the competent authority.
• A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 150): Administrative power must not be
used arbitrarily or mechanically.

Provisions:

• Doctrine of failure to exercise discretion

• Administrative Law principles – non-delegation of essential discretion

Decision:

The order is invalid as the Commissioner merely acted under instructions, without independent
consideration. Delegation of discretion without legal sanction amounts to abdication of duty.

27