SUPREME COURT

• CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS

Bhim Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (Decided on 06.05.2010) MANU/SC/0327/2010

Constitutional validity of Members of Parliament Local Area Development (MPLAD) Scheme - Articles 275 and 282 of Constitution of India, 1950 - Whether the funds ear-marked and being spent from the Consolidated Fund of Union for implementation of the MPLAD Scheme is in accordance with the constitutional provisions and whether Parliament is empowered under Article 282 of the Constitution to make allocation under the MPLAD Scheme?

Held, Both Articles 275 and 282 are sources of spending funds/monies under the Constitution. Article 282 acts as an enabling provision to allow the Union or the State to make any grant by conferring the widest possible power. Grant must be made for a 'public purpose' only. Welfare schemes advancing the public purpose/public interest by grants cannot be restricted under Article 282 - Expression "Grants" in Article 282 will have to be construed in a wider sense and it is not subject to any Article including Article 275. Article 282 is normally meant for special, temporary or ad hoc schemes. However, the matter of expenditure for a "public purpose", is subject to fulfillment of the constitutional requirements and cannot be restricted. Thus, Article 282 can be the source of power for emergent transfer of funds, like the MPLAD Scheme and it is constitutionally valid. Petition dismissed.

Accountability of Members of Parliament (MPs) under MPLAD Scheme - Whether the Scheme obliterates the demarcation between the legislature and the executive by making MPs virtual members of the executive without any accountability?

Held, various levels of accountability were provided under the scheme. Firstly, the MP concerned recommends works and the decision making power in regard to technical, financial, administrative sanctions accorded under the scheme, vests in the district level functionaries. Secondly, Parliament has the power to enquire and take appropriate action against the erring members and both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have set up Standing Committee to monitor the works under the Scheme. Thirdly, the Guidelines also provides that the Scheme has to be implemented with the co-ordination of various authorities and subject to the supervision and control of the nodal Ministry. Fourthly, the Scheme does not override any powers vested in the State Government or the local authority. Thus, there has been a close coordination between the authorities, namely, the Central Government, State Government and the District Authorities. Fifthly, the MPLAD Scheme is effectively controlled and implemented by the District Authority in the case of Panchayats and Commissioners/Chief Executive Officers, in the case of Municipalities and Corporations with adequate safeguards under the guidelines.

Separation of Powers - Whether the Scheme violates the principle of Separation of Powers under the Constitution?

Held, concept of Separation of Powers inherent in the polity the Indian Constitution. In modern governance, strict separation is neither possible, nor desirable. Till principle of accountability is preserved, there is no violation of separation of powers. No rigid separation of powers is enshrined under our Constitution and overlap of few functions are not unconstitutional being violative of separation of power till the constitutional accountability is maintained. In the present case, there is no violation of concept of separation of powers. Members of Parliament ultimately responsible to Parliament for his action as an MP even under the Scheme. All Members of Parliament be it a Member of Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha or a nominated Member of Parliament are only seeking to advance public interest and public purpose and it is quite logical for the Member of Parliament to carry out developmental activities to the constituencies they represent.

Panchayats and Municipalities - Part IX and Part IX-A of the Constitution of India, 1950 - Whether the MPLAD scheme takes over part of the functions of the Panchayats and Municipalities and is inconsistent with Part IX and Part IX-A of the Constitution by encroaching upon the powers and functions of elected bodies?

Held, in the present case, the role of an Memmber of Parliament in MPLAD Scheme merely recommendatory in nature and the entire execution has been entrusted to the District/Municipal Authority which belongs to the executive organ. District Authority and Chief Executive Officer have been entrusted with the absolute authority to discharge upon the feasibility of works recommended by engaging an implementing agency. Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) are the preferred Implementing Agency in the rural areas. Major role played by Panchayats, Municipalities and Corporations under MPLAD Scheme in execution and implementation of works. Panchayat Raj Institutions, Municipal as well as local bodies have also not been denuded of their role or jurisdiction by the Scheme as due place has been accorded to them by the guidelines, in the implementation of the Scheme.The Scheme is not unconstitutional.

Corrupt Practice - Whether the scheme violates the democratic principle of free and fair elections as it gives an unfair advantage to the Members of Parliament (MPs) in contesting elections by violating the provisions of the Constitution?

Held, MPs are permitted to recommend specific kinds of works for the welfare of the people. These works are to be conducted after approval of relevant authorities and cannot be claimed as an unfair advantage or corrupt practices within the meaning of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951. In the present case, MPLAD Scheme makes funds available to sitting MPs for developmental work only and proper checks and balances were provided under the scheme. Better utilisation of funds by MP, which could lead voting in his favour in subsequent elections, does not violate any principle of free and fair elections.

Union of India v. Ramesh Ram (Decided on 07.05.2010) MANU/SC/0343/2010

Constitutional validity of sub-rules (2) to (5) of Rule16 of the Civil Service Examination Rules - Whether candidates belonging to reserved category, who get recommended against general/unreserved vacancies on account of their merit (without the benefit of any relaxation/concession), can opt for a higher choice of service earmarked for Reserved Category and thereby migrate to reservation category?

Held - Candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16 (2) and adjusted in the reserved category should be counted as part of the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate reservation quotas. The seats vacated by MRC candidates in the General Pool will be offered to General category candidates. By operation of Rule 16 (2), the reserved status of an MRC candidate is protected so that his/ her better performance does not deny him of the chance to be allotted to a more preferred service. The amended Rule 16 (2) only seeks to recognise the inter se merit between two classes of candidates i.e. a) meritorious reserved category candidates b) relatively lower ranked reserved category candidates, for the purpose of allocation to the various Civil Services with due regard for the preferences indicated by them. The reserved category candidates "belonging to OBC, SC/ ST categories" who are selected on merit and placed in the list of General/Unreserved category candidates can choose to migrate to the respective reserved category at the time of allocation of services. Such migration as envisaged by Rule 16 (2) is not inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) or Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution. Appeals Allowed.

B.P Singhal v. Union of India (Decided on 07.05.2010) MANU/SC/0350/2010 

Removal of Governors - Interpretation of Article 156 of the Constitution of India,1950 - Whether the instant petition against the Presidential Order for removal of Governors maintainable?

Held, Ratio in the cases Ranji Thomas v. Union of India to be followed. In the instant petition the Petitioner has no locus to maintain the petition in regard to the prayers claiming relief for the benefit of the individual Governors. However, with regard to question of public importance touching upon the scope of Article 156(1) of the Constitution and the limitations upon Doctrine of Pleasure the Petitioner has necessary locus.

Doctrine of Pleasure - What is the scope of "doctrine of pleasure"?

Held, Doctrine of Pleasure means that the holder of an office under pleasure can be removed at any time, without notice, without assigning cause, and without there being a need for any cause. But where rule of law prevails, there is nothing like unfettered discretion or unaccountable action. Constitution of India provides that some offices will be held during the pleasure of the President, without any express limitations or restrictions, it should however necessarily be read as being subject to the "fundamentals of constitutionalism". Doctrine of pleasure, however, is not a licence to act with unfettered discretion to act arbitrarily, whimsically, or capriciously. The withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sweet will, whim and fancy of the Authority, but can only be for valid reasons.

Position Of Governor - What is the position of a Governor under the Constitution of India?

Held, Governor constitutes an integral part of the legislature of a State. They are vested with the legislative power to promulgate ordinances while the Houses of the legislature are not in session. Governor not an agent or the employee of the Union Government. Governors are not expected or required to implement the policies of the government or popular mandates. Constitutional role of Governor clearly defined and bears very limited political overtones. Governors to be apolitical person like the President to discharge purely constitutional functions, irrespective of their earlier political background.

Limitation of Power - Whether there are any express or implied limitations/restrictions upon the power under Article 156(1) of the Constitution of India?

Held,doctrine of pleasure under Article 156(1) is subject to the express restrictions. Article 310(2) and the restrictions in Article 311(1) and (2) implies restriction on "Doctrine of Pleasure. Clause (2) of Article 311 which provides that no such employee shall be dismissed or removed from service except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges levelled against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. The provision for removal at the pleasure of an authority without any restriction, applies to Ministers as also the Attorney General apart from Governors. The only limitation on the exercise of the power under Article 156 is that it should be for valid reasons. What constitute valid reasons would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

Constitution - Judicial review of withdrawal of President's pleasure - Whether the removal of Governors in exercise of the doctrine of pleasure is open to judicial review?

Held, As there is no need to assign reasons, any removal as a consequence of withdrawal of the pleasure will be assumed to be valid and will be open to only a limited judicial review. If prima facie the removal was either arbitrary, malafide, capricious or whimsical, the court will call upon the Union Government to disclose, the material upon which the President had taken the decision to withdraw the pleasure. If Union Government unable to disclose then Court can interfere. However, Court will not interfere merely because different view possible or that material reasons insufficient.

• CRIMINAL

Ranbir Yadav v. State of Bihar (Decided 12.05.2010) MANU/SC/0364/2010

Contempt of Court - Criminal Contempt - Section 2 (c) of Contempt of Court Act - Whether High Court correct in upholding the Appellant guilty for criminal contempt in the instant case?

Held, section 2(c)(ii) has been enacted to protect apart from sanctity, the regularity and purity of a judicial proceeding. The offending acts of the Appellant constitute contempt in the face of Court. When contempt takes place in the face of the Court, peoples' faith in the administration of justice receives a severe jolt and precious judicial time is wasted. Therefore, the offending acts of the Appellant certainly come within the ambit of interference with the due course of judicial proceeding and are a clear case of criminal contempt in the face of the Court. High Court correct in upholding the Appellant guilty of Contempt. Belated apology cannot be entertained. An apology in a contempt proceeding must be offered at the earliest possible opportunity. A belated apology hardly shows the 'contrition which is the essence of the purging of a contempt'.

HIGH COURT

• SERVICE

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

K. Sakthivel v. Additional Director General of Prison, etc. (Decided on 26.04.2010) MANU/TN/0431/2010 

Order of Compulsory Retirement from service - Inquiry conducted in violation of Principles of natural justice - Tamil Nadu Government Servant's Conduct Rule, 1973 - Petitioner appointed in Central Prisoner as Secondary Grade Teacher - Whether the Inquiry conducted by the Inquiry officer, resulting in Order of Compulsory Retirement from service, was conducted in violation of Principles of natural justice?

Held, the enquiry report clearly proves the fact that the petitioner had illegal relationship with the prisoners in Coimbatore Central Prison which is a high security prison where various hard-core prisoners including prisoners relating to banned organisations like Al-Umma, TNLA and TNRT etc., are confined. When the petitioner was returning from duty, he was searched by the Jailer at which time he was in possession of 12 contraband articles. The Enquiry Officer's report clearly proves the petitioner's willful breach of Rule Nos. 146, 147 and 148 of Tamil Nadu Prison Manual Volume II and also violation of Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules 20(1) which requires every Government Servant to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. The disciplinary authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the act of the petitioner is unbecoming of a teacher, who works in the prison. Writ Petition is dismissed.

• LABOUR AND INDUSTRY

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

C. Thirunavukkarasu v. The General Manager (Administration), The Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd.  (Decided on 27.04.2010) MANU/TN/0430/2010 

Raising of Industrial Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Petitioners working as security guards - Punishment of stoppage of increments

Held, that if an individual workman is dismissed or discharged from the service of the employer, the individual workman is entitled to raise his dispute Under Section 2(A) of the Act. Punishment being only the stoppage of three increments for three years and the other being only recovery towards the loss caused, the above cannot be termed to be double jeopardy. Disciplinary proceedings initiated by the disciplinary authority are quasi judicial in character. Normally the High Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded in the domestic enquiry, but if the findings of guilt is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. Court found no case was made out by the petitioners to interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondents. Writ Petition dismissed.

• CIVIL

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

TMAES Ayurveda Medical College v. Union of India (Decided on 06.05.2010)

Examination result withheld in Medical College - Writ filed under section 151 of C.P.C. for direction to announce result of examination

Held, that in case results are not announced appellants would run the risk of losing the entire academic year which will be to their detriment. Unless the results are announced they will not be able to secure admission to next semester during the ensuing academic year. University directed to announce results of appellants. Appeal disposed accordingly disposed of.

• PROPERTY

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

M. Christopher v. The Forest Range Officer, Azagia Pandipuram Range (Decided on 05.05.2010) MANU/TN/0453/2010 

Removal of encroachment in the forest land - Eviction notice under Section 68A of Tamil Nadu Forest Act - Violation of principles of natural justice

Held, the Appellant did not respond to the notice, but he has sent the reply stating that the Court Judgment and decree and other material documents are binding upon the Forest Department and that he cannot be called upon to produce the documents. When the Appellant has not chosen to produce the documents it is not open to the Appellant to raise the plea of violation of principles of natural justice. It is a clear case of abuse of process of Court that the Appellant remains in possession by obtaining one order or other by moving the Court. Writ Appeal is dismissed.

• MOTOR VEHICLES

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. N. Balaganesan and E.S. Balakrishna (Decided on 05.05.2010) MANU/TN/0459/2010

Award of Compensation by MACT - Object of passing a reasoned award - Whether the award of Tribunal is a valid award in law as not complying with requirement of being a reasoned award?

Held, that an unreasoned Award may be just, but may not appear to be so to the individual affected. Per contra, a reasoned Award will have the appearance of Justice and an application of mind by a Court of Law/Tribunal. The object of passing a reasoned Award is to project an impression that the rival contentions of the parties are taken note of by the Tribunal or by a Court of Law. A Court of Law/Tribunal will have to determine the points for consideration, the decision thereon and the reasons assigned for arriving at a particular decision. The main object is to raise the points for determination, which is meant to clear up the pleading and focus the attention of the Tribunal and of the litigants on the specific and divergent contentions which crop up for rumination. In short, the Award of the Tribunal/Court of Law must reflect that the Tribunal had appreciated the issues involved in the subject matter, applied its mind and most importantly decided on considering the evidence on record. Merely awarding a particular sum under a certain head will not suffice. In short, the Tribunal must take up for consideration all the points that arise for determination in a Claims Petition pertaining to the compensation. Appeal allowed.

• CRIMINAL

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Pushpam Appala Naidu v. State of Karnatka (Decided on 06.05.2010)

Quashing of complaint under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for offence of cheating under sections 406 and 420 of IPC - Complainant sought to withdraw complaint but police officers not allowed withdrawn as final report has been filed - Whether in view of the complaint withdrawn by complainant, the case under sections 406 and 420 of IPC is liable to be quashed by the HC?

Held, in view of the complainant's stand that she does not intend to prosecute her complaint as she has already received the amount and there is no intention to petitioners to defraud her, no fruitful purpose would be served in continuing prosecution. Criminal proceedings quashed and petition allowed.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Arvind Navinchandra Mafatlal, Chairman Emeritus of NOCIL Ltd. and Mr. Hrishkesh Arvind Mafatlal, Chairman of NOCIL Limited Ex-Chairman of DE-NOCIL Crop Protection Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr. Palakavayalli Joseph Thomas, Mrs. Sonia Thomas Pinto and State of Maharashtra (Decided on 23.04.2010) MANU/MH/0396/2010

Abuse of process of Law - Whether the issuance of process against the accused under section 406,420 and 423 of IPC tenable keeping in view accused being Juristic persons and not natural person?

Held, it can clearly be seen that for all the three offences under Sections 406, 420 and 423 of IPC for which the process has been issued "mens rea" is one of the essential ingredient of the offence. Since accused are juristic persons and not a natural person, by no stretch of imagination they can be said to have requisite mens rea. As such the proceedings against the accused will not be sustainable in law, taking considered view that the complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law, complaint against any of the accused is not sustainable in law and therefore in the interest of justice it is necessary to quash the criminal proceedings against all the accused.