( 51 ) THE inference that there was no urgency is re-enforced by the course of the proceedings here. On 1st September 1972, when the petition was admitted, an ex-parte interim order was made restraining the dispossession of the petitioner from his lands. Notice of the application for stay was served on the respondent for 4th October 1972. On that date no one appeared for the respondents and the ex-parte order 'was confirmed. Though the petition remained pending for three years, at no time was an application made to have that order set aside. Had the need for the land been urgent, some attempt would surely have been made to secure possession. The inertia of Delhi Administration proves that there was no pressing need. and the inevitable conclusion is that there was no urgency.

( 52 ) HENCE, section 17 (1) and (4) could not be resorted to in the present case. Except the notification under section 4, all the proceedings taken are invalid. Accordingly, in my opinion, this petition should be allowed and notifications (iii), (iv) and (v) should be quashed, saving the first three paragraphs of notification (iii) which pertain to section 4 of the Act. The respondents will, or course, be entitled to proceed afresh from that stage in accordance with law. Having regard to all the circumstances, in particular, that the petitioner has succeeded only on one point and much time was spent over the others. I would leave the parties to bear their own costs.

( 53 ) HAVE had the pleasure of reading the elaborate and convincing judgement of my learned brother Chawla J. I would however like to add a few words of my own on judicial review of subjective discretion.

( 54 ) THE terms "subjective" and "objective" gave rise to a debate in the course of arguments. In the philosophy of mind subjective denotes what is referred to the thinking subject, the Ego. The objective belongs to the object of thought, the Non-Ego. It is a tendency to lay stress upon what is external to the mind as opposed to the subjective sensations that arise only in the mind.

( 55 ) TRUE it is that there is no such thing as purely subjective or purely objective. These elements are so mixed in us that it is difficult to say when the subjective element recedes and the objective element preponderates. The mind is conditioned by the object. The object in its turn influences the mind. There is action and interaction. But mankind has always striven to be objective as far as it has lain in its power. This thought has been expressed by judge Cordozo in his inimitable style:"the traditions of our jurisprudence commit us to the objective standard. I do not mean, of course, that this ideal of objective vision is ever perfectly attamed. We cannot transcend the limitations of the ego and see anything as it really is. None the less, the ideal is one to be striven for within the limits of our capacity. This truth, when clearly perceived, tends to unify the judge's function. " (Selected Writings p. 151 ).

( 56 ) BUT here we are not concerned with the philosophical systems of thought and their refinements. These two terms have gained currency and are now accepted as part of the legal nomenclature. Subjective power means in plain terms discretionary administrative action. it is subjective freedom of choice to take one course or another. There comes in at once the need for legal control. The need for control, and control according to law, will remain so long as men believe that uncontrolled power is an evil to be eradicated from civilised society. It is perhaps two often forgotten that one of the merits of the rule of law is that it is a curb power-irrespective of the person or institution who weilds it. Law, it has been said, is the finest flower of human civilisation.

( 57 ) IT is true that no terminology is perfect. For want of better words writers and judges have adopted these terms. What is after all in a name that which we call a rose. By any other name it would smell as sweet.

( 58 ) SECTION 17

Click Here to Read the rest of this document