1. Challenge to Delhi government's decision to close down lotteries, which were earlier permitted by the central government. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 1128
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.V.Reddi : R.C.Lahoti
Government Of National Capital Territory, Delhi
Versus
Inder Pal Singh Chadha
Case No. : 3319 of 1997
Date of Decision : 8/20/01
Important Points
Permission granted to perform an activity does not imply a compulsion to continue that activity. Additionally, courts should avoid adjudicating constitutional issues unless such determination is essential for providing relief in the specific case.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Administrative Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 239AA and 298 - Executive power and legislative powers of a Union Territory - Decision to cease operation of lotteries - Grant of permission by central government to run lotteries does not imply a compulsion to continue the same - If the administration does not wish to run the lotteries, there is no mandate compelling it to do so. (Para 5)
(B) Adjudication of Constitutional Issues - Constitutional issues should not be decided unless necessary for the purpose of providing relief in a given case. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
Permission was granted by the central government to an authority to run lotteries occasionally, which was later transferred to the local administration of a Union Territory. The local administration subsequently decided to close down the lotteries. This decision was struck down by the High Court on the ground that the administration of the Union Territory lacked independent executive power to take such a decision and should have sought directions from the central government.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the permission granted to run lotteries did not imply a compulsion to continue the operation. Consequently, the administration was within its rights to stop the activity if it so desired.
Issues: Whether the local administration of a Union Territory is compelled to continue a permitted activity and whether the High Court was justified in deciding constitutional issues regarding the executive power of the Union Territory.
Ratio Decidendi: Permission to perform an act does not equate to a compulsion to perform it. Furthermore, courts should refrain from deciding constitutional issues unless they are necessary for granting relief in the specific case.
Result: Appeal treated as disposed of.
(B) Adjudication of Constitutional Issues - Constitutional issues should not be decided unless necessary for the purpose of providing relief in a given case. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
Permission was granted by the central government to an authority to run lotteries occasionally, which was later transferred to the local administration of a Union Territory. The local administration subsequently decided to close down the lotteries. This decision was struck down by the High Court on the ground that the administration of the Union Territory lacked independent executive power to take such a decision and should have sought directions from the central government.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the permission granted to run lotteries did not imply a compulsion to continue the operation. Consequently, the administration was within its rights to stop the activity if it so desired.
Issues: Whether the local administration of a Union Territory is compelled to continue a permitted activity and whether the High Court was justified in deciding constitutional issues regarding the executive power of the Union Territory.
Ratio Decidendi: Permission to perform an act does not equate to a compulsion to perform it. Furthermore, courts should refrain from deciding constitutional issues unless they are necessary for granting relief in the specific case.
Result: Appeal treated as disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
-
practice and procedure
-
adjudication of constitutional issues
- necessity for relief (Para 6)
-
adjudication of constitutional issues
Table of Contents
2. Delhi government claimed it had power to take decisions on subjects it can legislate; central government argued Delhi remains a Union Territory. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The permission to run lotteries did not compel the Delhi government to continue them; constitutional issues need not be decided unnecessarily. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Constitutional issues should not be decided unless necessary for giving relief in a given case. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal disposed of without expressing opinion on the constitutional issues raised, leaving them open for an appropriate case. (Para 7 )
6. Should courts decide constitutional issues when the case can be resolved on other grounds?
No, constitutional issues should not be decided unless that is necessary to grant relief in the given case; otherwise the expression of opinion is unnecessary and uncalled for. (Para 6 )
7. Does permission from the central government to run lotteries compel the Delhi government to continue them?
No, the permission to run lotteries does not imply any compulsion to continue running them; the Delhi government may decide to close lotteries if it wishes to. (Para 5 )
8. What is the core question regarding the constitutional status of Delhi in this appeal?
Whether the Delhi government has full state powers to take and implement administrative decisions on subjects it can legislate, or whether it remains a Union Territory administered through the Lt. Governor. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT
R.C.LAHOTI, J.
(1) THE Delhi Development Authority some time in the year 1969 sought for permission of the central government to run lotteries in Delhi. By order dated 17/04/1969, it was conveyed to the Lt. Governor of Delhi that the President of India was pleased to grant permission to the occasional running of lotteries in Delhi by the Delhi Development Authority. By order dated 31/03/1992, the central government decided the running of Delhi lotteries to be transferred from Delhi Development Authority to Delhi Administration with effect from 1/04/1992. On 21/12/1994, the Government of Delhi took a decision, with the approval of the Lt. Governor, to close down Delhi lotteries with effect from 3/01/1995.
(2) SOME of the agents running lotteries put in issue the decision of Delhi government by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi. The High Court of Delhi formed an opinion that Delhi is a Union Territory and cannot be equated with state and thus, it is not possible for the court to uphold the contention put forth on behalf of the Delhi Government that Article 239AA of the Constitution is a complete Code dealing with legislative and executive powers of Delhi Government. The High Court also held that executive power under Article 298 of the Constitution is not co-terminus with the limited legislative power conferred by Article 239AA(3)(a) on Delhi Government as Article 298 does not apply to the Union Territory of Delhi. In the opinion of the High Court, the proper course for the Delhi Government to follow, after having taken a decision to close down the lotteries, was to approach the Government of India for appropriate directions. In view of these reasons, the High Court struck down the decision of Delhi Government referred to hereinabove.
(3) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment of Delhi High Court, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi has come up in appeal by special leave.
(4) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that Delhi Government is a full fledged state and it has power to take administrative decisions and to implement them on all the subjects on which it has power to legislate. This has been disputed on behalf of the central government by the learned Attorney General submitting that Delhi continues to be a Union Territory administered through Lt. Governor.
(5) IN our opinion, the present case does not call for adjudication of the pleas and the constitutional issues raised before the court. It was conceded at the bar that in the year 1969, it was only a permission granted by the central government to Delhi Development Authority "to run the lotteries occasionally and on 1/04/1992, the operation of the lotteries came to be transferred to Delhi government. The permission granted to Delhi Development Authority, later on transferred to Delhi Government, did not imply any compulsion to run the lotteries and if Delhi Government does not wish to run the lotteries, there is nothing in the decision of the central government which compels it to do so.
(6) WE are, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court need not have entered into and dwelt upon the questions which it did and as such, the expression of opinion by the High Court is unnecessary and uncalled for. Constitutional issues should not be decided unless that is necessary to do for the purpose of giving relief in a given case. We, therefore, do not express any opinion on the pleas raised in the writ petition and in the appeal and leave the same open for decision in an appropriate case.
(7) THE appeal be treated as disposed of.
