9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Withdrawal of exemption notification on grounds of mala fides. Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal where the appellant raised concerns regarding the withdrawal of an exemption notification by a subsequent government. The appellant contended that the withdrawal was mala fide, done by the new government to reverse the actions of the previous government. The appellant highlighted the sequence of events leading to the exemption withdrawal, emphasizing the alleged mala fides involved. However, the court noted that while the special leave petition alleged mala fides, the original writ petition lacked such averments. The court emphasized that mala fides are questions of fact requiring specific allegations and supporting material. As the writ petition did not raise this issue, the court held that it could not be considered for the first time in the appeal. The appellant referred to a Privy Council decision to support the contention that a successor officer cannot overturn a decision made by their predecessor, especially after it has been acted upon. However, the court distinguished the present case by highlighting the government's authority to revise industrial or fiscal policies as deemed necessary. The court emphasized that the new government had the power to reassess and alter policies based on the prevailing circumstances. It noted that no assurance was given regarding the duration of the exemption initially granted. Therefore, the court concluded that the withdrawal of the exemption by the new government at a later date could not be deemed mala fide. As the issue of mala fides was the sole contention in the appeal, the court found no merit in the argument and dismissed the appeal with costs.
|
