Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
The Court emphasized that the Government's powers are confined within the scope of the law and cannot be exercised arbitrarily or beyond statutory authority ["Venkata Naidu G. v. Bellary Central Cooperative Stores Ltd. - Karnataka"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["Venkata Naidu G. v. Bellary Central Cooperative Stores Ltd. - Karnataka"]- ["Bhagwandas v. State - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. R. 1523 and Others v. State of Kerala and Others - Kerala"]
In the complex interplay between state power and legal accountability, a pressing question often arises: Can the government act against its own grantees, entities, or instrumentalities? This issue touches the heart of constitutional governance, where unchecked authority could undermine fairness and public trust. Generally, the law imposes strict limits to prevent arbitrary or unlawful actions by the government against those it has empowered or supported.
This blog post delves into the legal principles, key court findings, and practical implications, drawing from authoritative judgments. Note: This is general information, not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The foundational rule is clear: The government cannot act arbitrarily or beyond its legal authority against its own entities or those acting on its behalf. Any such action is liable to be invalidated. This stems from constitutional mandates like Article 14 (equality before law) and the doctrine of ultra vires (beyond powers).Jit Ram Shiv Kumar VS State Of Haryana - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 209
Key points include:- Government must operate within statutory and constitutional bounds. Exceeding authority triggers the ultra vires rule, rendering actions void.Jit Ram Shiv Kumar VS State Of Haryana - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 209- Arbitrary or unreasonable decisions violate Article 14 and are subject to being struck down.Wilfred Anthony Jose Pereira VS State of Maharashtra (Revenue & Forest Department) - 2013 0 Supreme(Bom) 2222- The state cannot arbitrarily target its own lawful entities without a solid legal basis.Jagannath Agarwala VS State Of Orissa - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 92
As stated in one ruling: It is only in public interest that it is recognised that an authority acting on behalf of the Government or by virtue of statutory powers cannot exceed his authority. Rule of ultra vires will become applicable when he exceeds his authority and the Government would not be bound by such action.Jit Ram Shiv Kumar VS State Of Haryana - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 209
Government actions are not absolute. They must align with public interest and rationality. Courts have consistently held: The Government cannot act arbitrarily and without reason and if it does, its action would be liable to be invalidated.Wilfred Anthony Jose Pereira VS State of Maharashtra (Revenue & Forest Department) - 2013 0 Supreme(Bom) 2222
This principle ensures executive powers under Article 162 remain tethered to legality. Actions failing the 'reasonableness test' invite judicial review, protecting entities from capricious state moves.
When it comes to internal entities or past liabilities, the government faces further curbs. The 'act of State' concept limits judicial compulsion on accepting prior state obligations, but it doesn't greenlight arbitrary harm to current instrumentalities. One case clarifies: rejection of claims against a former state is an act of State, yet the current government cannot exceed constitutional powers in dealing with its own setups.Jagannath Agarwala VS State Of Orissa - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 92
Courts across India have echoed these limits in diverse contexts, preventing the government from leveraging its position unfairly.
No Advantage from Own Wrongdoing: In a COVID-19 license fee dispute, the court ruled the pandemic was force majeure; the government (via DTIDC) couldn't demand fees during lockdown or take coercive steps, as the Government cannot take advantage of its own wrong.Geeta Jeena VS Government of NCT of Delhi - 2021 Supreme(Del) 2440 This extended to waivers and license renewals, highlighting public law duties even in contracts.Geeta Jeena VS Government of NCT of Delhi - 2021 Supreme(Del) 2440
Promissory Estoppel and Policy Flip-Flops: Governments can't renege on promises that induce reliance. In a land acquisition case, the doctrine placed the citizen and the State at the same footing, barring retreat from investment-inducing policies.SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORP. LTD. VS STATE OF U. P. - 2010 Supreme(All) 1710 Similarly, unfulfilled rewards to police can't be dodged: the State Government cannot take advantage of its own inaction.K. Ningaraju VS State of Karnataka Reptd. By Chief Secretary Govt. of Karnataka - 2010 Supreme(Kar) 1023
Injunctions and Statutory Bars: Malaysian and Indian parallels show injunctions against government are restricted. Under laws like the Government Proceedings Act, courts can't restrain public duties lightly. One ruling affirmed: injunctions against government for performance bonds are impermissible, prioritizing public interest.KHARISMA WIRA SDN BHD vs KETUA SETIAUSAHA KEMENTERIAN PERTAHANAN MALAYSIA & ORS
Control Over Corporations and Services: State control under statutes (e.g., Sections 417-421) doesn't permit overreach. Meetings directed by government are valid only within powers; illegal regularization of strikes was struck down.Vani Rao v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others - 2014 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 79Balagopalan G. v. State of Kerala and Others - 2021 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 44645 Judicial independence further insulates: government can't unilaterally decide on judges' discipline.K. S. Raju, S/o. K. Sudhakaran VS State Of Kerala - 2015 Supreme(Ker) 1725
Pensions and Natural Justice: Delaying pension decisions for decades violates fairness; Government cannot take advantage of its own inaction.Mohammad Abdullah Khanday VS Secretary to Government, School Education Department - 2018 Supreme(J&K) 291 Courts quashed denials, mandating benefits under Civil Services Rules.
These cases illustrate a pattern: whether contracts, grants, or services, the government is held to higher accountability against its own.
Limits aren't absolute. Permissible actions include:- Those within statutory scope, reasonable, and serving public interest.Jit Ram Shiv Kumar VS State Of Haryana - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 209- Statutory powers exercised adversely, if not arbitrary.Jit Ram Shiv Kumar VS State Of Haryana - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 209- Superintendence under specific laws, like over registrars, without usurping roles.Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Ugrasen (D) by Lrs. and Others - 2010 Supreme(Online)(SC) 91
For instance, urgency in land acquisition for public needs (e.g., housing) withstands review if backed by materials, without invoking promissory estoppel absent direct promises.SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORP. LTD. VS STATE OF U. P. - 2010 Supreme(All) 1710
Facing potential government action? Consider:- Verify Authority: Challenge ultra vires moves early via writs under Article 226.- Seek Judicial Review: Highlight arbitrariness or Article 14 violations.Wilfred Anthony Jose Pereira VS State of Maharashtra (Revenue & Forest Department) - 2013 0 Supreme(Bom) 2222- Document Reliance: Invoke promissory estoppel for policy-induced actions.SAHARA INDIA COMMERCIAL CORP. LTD. VS STATE OF U. P. - 2010 Supreme(All) 1710- Public Interest Angle: Argue force majeure or own-wrong doctrines in contracts.Geeta Jeena VS Government of NCT of Delhi - 2021 Supreme(Del) 2440
Governments should:- Stick to legal scopes to avoid invalidation.Jit Ram Shiv Kumar VS State Of Haryana - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 209- Ensure reasonableness in decisions.Wilfred Anthony Jose Pereira VS State of Maharashtra (Revenue & Forest Department) - 2013 0 Supreme(Bom) 2222- Honor assurances to maintain trust.K. Ningaraju VS State of Karnataka Reptd. By Chief Secretary Govt. of Karnataka - 2010 Supreme(Kar) 1023
In conclusion, while governments wield broad authority, they cannot act against their own grantees or entities whimsically. Such moves risk nullification, upholding rule of law. Stay informed, act proactively, and remember: this overview isn't advice—seek professional counsel for tailored guidance.
References:1. Jit Ram Shiv Kumar VS State Of Haryana - 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 209: Ultra vires in government actions.2. Wilfred Anthony Jose Pereira VS State of Maharashtra (Revenue & Forest Department) - 2013 0 Supreme(Bom) 2222: Arbitrariness and reasonableness.3. Jagannath Agarwala VS State Of Orissa - 1961 0 Supreme(SC) 92: Act of State limits.4. Additional cases as cited inline.
#GovernmentLaw, #UltraVires, #ConstitutionalLimits
Krishna Murthy that under S.121 of the Act the Government can only restrict or limit the number of nominated members specified in S.29 of the Act but cannot increase or enlarge such number or that the Government cannot nominate the Chairman and / or the Managing Director. ... 21. ... Whether the view taken by Government is correct or not, it cannot be said that the Government could not have bona fide believed so. ... In view of th....
Thus, under the Agricultural Produce Markets Act the market committee cannot spend the market committee fund on any other purpose. ... ... We are, therefore, of opinion that in such a case when the purpose of the Act is clearly specified by the Legislature and the method of collecting funds and the distribution thereof has also been provided, it cannot be said that the delegation is excessive in favour of the executive Government. ... It cannot also be seriously disputed that the impu....
... 66. 5th POINT: RESPONDENTS CANNOT BE RESTRAINED ... S.417, S.418, and 421 of the Act are in Chap.9 of the Act. It is titled as 'CONTROL'. Different Sections of this chap ter empower the State Government to exercise control over the corporations under the Act. ... 67. ... The meeting is not called under S.29 of the Act, but is called in pursuance of the direction issued by the State Government under S.418 of the Act: the meeting cann....
the unofficial respondents to be restored back to the Government, as what the Government failed to achieve directly cannot be achieved indirectly. ... land and the Government on contest having lost the case, the petitioners cannot persist with the said claim of the subject land being a government land. ... it is only an aggrieved party, which can file an application invoking the provisions of the Act, against the person(s) named therein having resorted to an #HL_STAR....
Government and is liable to be quashed and cannot be upheld. ... The learned Government Pleader placing reliance on the decision in Dominion v. Shrinbai A. Irani, AIR 1954 SC 596 submits that the non - obstante clause appearing in S.20 of the Act cannot be invoked to nullify the effect of the provisions of S.5 of the Act. ... Now the Act is a Central enactment. S.36 of the Act authorises the Central Government to issue directions to....
in strikes and, therefore, the action of the Government in issuing Exhibit - P1 order dated 31/01/2019, regularising an illegal act, cannot be sustained in law. ... By invoking the above said Article, the State Government have enacted the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 (Act 19 of 1968). ... ... (10) The Service Association shall not do any act or assist in the doing of any act which, if done by a Government servant, would contrav....
In the absence of any such proceeding or such order, there was no occasion for the State Government to invoke its powers under S.65A of the Act. In our opinion, the State Government cannot for itself exercise the statutory functions of the Registrar under the Act or the Rules." ... 18. ... S.72 of the 1973 Act authorizes the State to exercise superintendence and control over the acts and proceedings of the officers appointed under S.3 and the authorities constituted under the #HL_ST....
Patni, also submits that lease is not under the Government Grants Act and since there is no recital of Government Grants Act in the lease deed, therefore, it cannot be said that lease of 1924 is governed by the provisions of the Government Grants Act. ... company cannot be held to be a holder of land to impose ceiling. ... Act being saved by proviso to Section 2 (3) of the Government Grants Act as....
s 29 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 which relates to injunction against the Government, the Court of Appeal in s 29 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 ("GPA"); s 29 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956, and s 54 of the Specific Relief Act has the same bar for any department of any Government in Malaysia..." ... In Bunyak Gadin, the Court of Appeal stated: "[16] With regard to the appeal on the granting of the injunctio....
As the two - tier system had come into force, it was felt by the Government that one DCB cannot function independently under the scheme of the Act. In the said circumstances, the Government issued Ordinance No.6 further bringing on amendments to S.2(ia) and S.74H of the Act. ... The Government cannot bypass the legislature and without enacting the provisions of the Ordinance into an Act of the legislature, re - promulgate the Ordinance as soon as the....
While on the one hand, it has imposed a lockdown and adherence to the same, on the other hand, it cannot demand the license fee and take coercive measures in respect thereof. It is finally submitted that the Government cannot take advantage of its own wrong.
It has taken the government about 39 years to pass the order from which what can be inferred is that the Government did not feel at any point of time that the petitioner had absented himself and to crown it all no enquiry has been conducted in the matter against the petitioner before passing the order impugned. The Government cannot take advantage of its own in action. This aspect of the case buttressed with the application of the principles of natural justice has been dealt with appropriately by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mushtaq Ahmad Khan vs. State of ....
So the contention in this respect cannot be countenanced. The constitutional provisions contained in Article 235 and also the relevant provisions under the CCA Rules firmly insulate the judiciary from the executive arm of the Government. Therefore the Government cannot take any decision on its own. Hence there is no point in asking the Government to hear the delinquent and to take a decision.
When the rewards are announced, the same should be fulfilled, inasmuch as the public at large legitimately expect that the Government will not go behind its own assurance. If it is so, the same yardstick is to be made use of to comply with its own assurance of allotting free sites to the STF personnel. This Court hopes, at least from now onwards, the State Government should be more careful in announcing the rewards. In my considered opinion, the State Government cannot take advantage of its own inaction.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is the pride of constitutional democracy and places the citizen and the State at the same footing. The petitioner changed its legal position in response to the policy in making investment for the acquired land. The Government cannot go back on its own policy in an unequivocal manner.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
