9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. What is mala fides in the province of exercise of power? 2. Is the acquisition proceeding in the instant case bad for bad faith? 3. Where, in the setting of Sec. 17 of the Act, do we draw the legal line between legitimate emergency power and illegitimate 'emergency excess'? 4. On the facts, here, do we bastardize or legitimize the State action under challenge? Summary: 1. What is mala fides in the province of exercise of power? The Court defined mala fides as bad faith that invalidates the exercise of power, often overlapping with motives, passions, and satisfactions. It is the attainment of ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of power by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. If the true object is to reach an end different from the one for which the power is entrusted, influenced by extraneous considerations, the court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion. 2. Is the acquisition proceeding in the instant case bad for bad faith? The High Court twice condemned the State's action in a case of land acquisition as mala fide. The factual matrix revealed that the acquisition was driven by personal vendetta, particularly by Respondent 22, a former minister. The High Court's decision was based on the admitted mala fides of the State, and the Supreme Court endorsed this view. The Court noted that the acquisition proceedings were a misuse of power to satisfy the personal ends of Respondent 22. 3. Where, in the setting of Sec. 17 of the Act, do we draw the legal line between legitimate emergency power and illegitimate 'emergency excess'? The Court emphasized that compulsory taking of a man's property is a serious matter, and hearing him before depriving him is both reasonable and preemptive of arbitrariness. Denial of this administrative fairness is constitutional anathema except for good reasons. The Court found that the invocation of emergency powers u/s 17 of the Land Acquisition Act in this case was a travesty, as the process had been pending for years and suddenly invoked emergency powers without a statutory enquiry. 4. On the facts, here, do we bastardize or legitimize the State action under challenge? The Court concluded that the acquisition was driven by political vendetta and personal influence, particularly by Respondent 22. The High Court's findings of mala fides were based on substantial evidence, and the Supreme Court found no reason to overturn these findings. The Court dismissed the State's petition for special leave to appeal, stating that no ground to grant leave had been made out. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the State's petition, agreeing with the High Court's findings of mala fides in the land acquisition proceedings. The Court emphasized the misuse of power for personal vendetta and the improper invocation of emergency powers u/s 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petition was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision to strike down the acquisition.
|
