Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ and G.S. Kulkarni, J., addressed an issue in light of the principles of judicial review explained that the Government must have freedom of contract.

 “…fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body, functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere.”

Factual Matrix

Petitioner was awarded a contract by the respondent – Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation for a period of 5 years of the work of mechanized housekeeping and multi-purpose services in its health centres, which came to be terminated in 2017 due to non-satisfactory performance.

Issue in the Writ Petitions 

  • Fresh Tender issued for the same work but with a pre-qualification criterion that an eligibility condition providing that “the contractors whose work contract is terminated due to unsatisfactory services or are blacklisted would not be eligible to participate in the tender”

Arbitration Proceedings

On being aggrieved with the termination of contract, arbitration proceedings by the petitioner were initiated against the Corporation.

Petitioner’s Case

Petitioner’s case that if the petitioner is held to be ineligible by application of the said note in Clause 4(g) of the pre-qualification criteria, it would lead to a consequence that the petitioner cannot participate in such contracts of the Corporation although the petitioner is not blacklisted or debarred and yet is being prohibited to participate in such re-tender.

Discussion and Conclusion

Question that falls for determination in the present matter are:

(I) Whether the Municipal Corporation is entitled in law to impose a pre-qualification criterion as contained in Condition 4(g) (supra) to the effect that ‘the contractors whose work contract is terminated due to unsatisfactory services are not eligible to participate in the tender’?

(II) Whether imposing such impugned condition would amount to blacklisting of the petitioner?

In the present matter, while considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Bench discusses some vital points with respect to:

  • legal principles on the authority of the State and its instrumentalities to enter into contracts and
  • Principles of Judicial Review.

Power of Judicial Review is exercised to rein in unbridled executive functioning.

It is not the function of the Court to act as a super board, or with the zeal of a pedantic school master substituting its judgment for that of the administration. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality of the tender process on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.

It is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. The only concern should be with the manner in which such decision have been taken.

On what grounds is the Judicial Review classified:

Firstly, Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it;

Secondly Irrationality, namely, Wednusbury unreasonableness, that is when a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at. The decision is such that no authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it.;

Thirdly Procedural impropriety. The Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the tendering authority, but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.

Bench in view of the above-stated expressed that the terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny as an invitation to tender is in the realm of contract.

Further, it was added that the Government must have freedom of contract. Principles laid above are enunciated in the Supreme Court decision of Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651.

With respect to taking a review of the authorities and more particularly on the prescription and adherence of essential conditions has laid down principles of judicial review in the Supreme Court decision of BSN Joshi &. Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548.

High Court elaborating more, added that the freedom to arrive at legitimate terms and conditions in inviting public offers cannot in any manner be taken away.

Cherished principles of free play in the joints and the liberty to choose a contractor, on terms and conditions fixed by the tendering authority in public interest, cannot be taken away.

Court would not have any expertise to sit in appeal over the tender conditions, the role of the Court is triggered only qua the decision-making process.

Moving forward, Bench examined whether Corporation acted either malafide or arbitrarily with material illegality in having a condition to restrict participation of a bidder whose contract is terminated due to unsatisfactory services?

 It was noted that the said condition was applicable to all the bidders and not just to the petitioner. The corporation made it clear with its condition that it did not desire a party whose work was unsatisfactory in the past to get onboard again, hence in Court’s opinion, the said condition became imperative, considering the nature of the contract.

Hence, Corporation’s condition was in no manner arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, Corporation was entitled in law to impose pre-qualification criteria as it did.

Second Question

 Imposing of impugned condition resulted in blacklisting the petitioner from participating in the tender in question?

Bench in light of the above question noted that a contractor cannot be blacklisted for having breached the terms and conditions of the contract unless a fair hearing was accorded to the party being blacklisted in due adherence to the principles of natural justice.

In Court’s Opinion, the present case is not the one wherein the petitioner can be said to be blacklisted by the Corporation.

In fact, the petitioner’s case is of an implied blacklisting by the Corporation by prescribing of a pre-bid criteria that a contractor whose work contract is terminated due to unsatisfactory performance is not eligible to participate in the tender.

Hence, present case is not of blacklisting.

It is also fallacious for the petitioner to label such condition as a condition of an implied blacklisting of the petitioner in future tenders to be issued by the Corporation. This is only a presumption of the petitioner. 

Concluding with the decision, High Court held that the petitions failed and were accordingly rejected. [BVG India Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 412, decided on 19-03-2021]

Advocates before the Court:

Mr. V. A. Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni and Mr. Sarthak S. Diwan for the Petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Marne, for the Respondents.

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Ms .R.A. Salukhe, AGP for State.


The Finance Minister while addressing the media on several financial decisions and schemes undertaken by the Government for the benefit of the common masses due to the sudden outbreak of novel COVID-19, which has brought the entire country to a grinding halt, announced that the threshold limit for triggering a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) shall stand increased to INR 1 crore.

The Gazette Notification dated 24-03-2020 [MCA Notification S.O. 1205(E)] categorically states that, by virtue of the power conferred by Parliament on the Central Government, vide the proviso to Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, may, by notification, increase the amount of default to a maximum amount of INR 1 crore. However, the said notification does not have any clarification as to the cut-off date with respect to the effective date, or, in the alternative if the notification comes into force immediately then what happens to the pending matters where notices have been issued but the National Company Law Tribunal (“the Adjudicating Authority”) is yet to admit the same. There is lack of clarity with respect to the aforesaid scenario, which will be creating confusion and will result in an ouster of cases which could not have been taken up due to this pandemic. A noble cause will get buried in this act of haste which will result in loss of forum, class-based differential treatment and confusion in the minds of the mass which are all attributes to the test of arbitrariness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this article, we have tried to test the viability of the Notification dated 24-03-2020 as it is and whether the lack of clarification will create more confusion than already existing, which will result in multifarious litigation.

While answering a policy decision, the first question that needs to be addressed is whether there is a power or is a colourable exercise of power or, a case of excessive delegation of powers?

The answer in this case is that, the power of the executive Government to increase the amount of default is beyond question, however, it should be examined on the bedrock and touchstone of reasonability and also whether it satisfies the test of objectivity for the purpose the  executive seeks to achieve through this notification.

For better understanding, Section 4 of the Code is reproduced:


Insolvency Resolution and Liquidation for Corporate Persons


Preliminary & Definitions

4. Application of this Part.— (1) This Part shall apply to matters relating to the insolvency and liquidation of corporate debtors where the minimum amount of the default is one lakh rupees:

Provided that the Central Government may, by notification, specify the minimum amount of default of higher value which shall not be more than one crore rupees.

The proviso to the aforesaid section empowers the executive to increase the threshold limit up to INR 1 crore and the minimum amount for triggering is mentioned as INR 1 lakh.

While testing a policy decision on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution needs more scrutiny than otherwise as the scope for judicial review is very limited. We need to apply the settled parameters as laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time starting from Budhan Choudhry v. State of Bihar.[1]

The principles are the following:

  1. The policy decision should not be class based which is strictly forbidden.
  2. It should not be manifestly arbitrary causing confusion and prejudice so as to negate statutory rights as well fundamental rights.
  3. It should satisfy the object and the rationale test.

To understand the purpose of the executive in enacting the aforesaid Notification dated 24.03.2020, one needs to scrutinise the object with the purpose the notification seeks to achieve.

The Government, as an aid to provide boost to the micro, small & medium enterprises industrial sector (hereinafter referred to as the “MSME”) during this period of worldwide lock-down raised the threshold and ordered immediate implementation of the same. However, the intent although shown in the press conference does not find place in the notification, as the notification has raised the threshold limit en bloc irrespective of sectors and category. However, the possible justification which could be inferred from the press conference is that, unless the threshold is increased, the MSME sector might default in payments and the creditors may send the industries into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and subsequently into liquidation.

As an illustration, if an MSME industry causes default in payments, then the financial creditor or the operational creditor might drag the company to the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 7 or Section 9 of the Code.

The aforesaid object and reasoning seems plausible, if we look at it with the object to save medium and small-scale industries as they also feature as the backbone of the Indian industrial economy.

On the other hand, while backing the aforesaid object with the rationale; the intention of executive militates against the very object behind framing of the Code which are:

  • The small-scale industries and medium scale, workmen, employees, distributors who basically come within the framework of operational creditors do not have to run from pillar to post to recover their money.
  • Clear demarcation of financial creditors and operational creditors and their stakes along with disbursement procedure.
  • Faster resolution process and time bound court process.
  • Cost-effective.
  • Easy accessibility.

The recent notification, in the absence of any clarification with respect to the date of commencement or the “effective date” and also, with respect to the cases where demand notices have been sent under Section 8 of the Code by an operational creditor, the cases which have been filed but could not be taken up because of this pandemic coupled with the cases which are yet to be admitted.

The notification in the absence of any clarification will be creating problem for the Courts with respect to the application of the same, as going by prior experience, the matters are likely to be shown the door due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. It will create a void as well as havoc as to the transition or transfer of those matters.

For example, if a default had arisen in January 2019, it cannot be simply  shown the door under the Code of 2016 by giving the justification of a pandemic in March 2020 by virtue of this notification, as the limitation to trigger insolvency under this Code stays live for a period of 3 years from the date of default[2]. Normally, by applying the canons of statutory interpretation and by invoking Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, all amendments or notifications are prospective unless specified to be retrospective; for which the power must be delegated to the executive by the legislature in the statute itself. However, none of the provisions in the Code, delegate that power to the executive.

When we think about the application of the upgraded threshold limit on the fresh cases which have been filed but could not be taken up due to limited functioning of the Courts and also the cases where defaults range from 2018-till date and the demand notices have been issued, the doors of the National Company Law Tribunal are likely to be shut on their faces because without there being any clarificatory note, the notification has come into application and might impact such pending cases also. Hence, by necessary implication this notification could become retrospective which is not only illegal but also perverse because the Supreme Court in the judgment of S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills (P) Ltd. v. Union of India[3] while considering a retrospective notification under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 had laid down the following: (SCC p. 746)

“18. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation.(See Keshavan Madhava Memon v. State of Bombay[4]). But the rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only ‘nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet, non praeteritis’. In the words of Lord Blanesburgh,

“provisions which touch a right in existence at the passing of the statute are not to be applied retrospectively in the absence of express enactment or necessary intendment.”

It is an accepted position that this notification is an executive act and not an amendment. Hence, this can be safely termed as a delegated piece of legislation. It is trite in law that a delegated piece of legislation cannot be made to be retrospective by the executive unless and until the statute gives the executive such power[5]. It is an accepted norm since the age of Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab[6] that, the executive can do such acts under a statute as far as permitted and as far as the power of the legislature extends.

Whenever the Government had decided on issues relating to raising the  pecuniary limit or enacting a separate law, which would cause loss of jurisdiction, the executive and the legislature in its wisdom on earlier occasions had taken care of such transition by issuing a clarification or by enacting a provision.

For example, when the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 was enacted, cases were transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunals (CAT) vide Section 29 of the Act of 1985. Similar situation and enactment had taken place when the Company Law Board was abolished and the jurisdiction got transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal vide Section 466 of the Companies Act, 2013.

However, there is no such provision in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The amendment of March 2020[7] is also silent on this aspect. The notification is also silent on the aspect of pending cases or where demand notices have been issued within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 238-A of the Code, 2016, which is three years.

As a recent example, we would like to cite the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 2019  dated 28-12-2019 whereby vide Section 3 of the said Ordinance, the criteria for home-buyers for approaching the NCLT under Section 7 of the Code was amended and the criteria was modified to 10% or 100 home-buyers from the same real estate project. The proviso to such an amendment laid down that for pending applications which were yet to be admitted, they must be amended within 30 days.

The said proviso was taking away the right of the people which had already accrued and was made to operative retrospectively by giving a time period of 30 days to amend the petition. Such an exercise of power in the absence of a provision expressly granting such retrospective enactments was prima facie arbitrary and called for a scrutiny by the  Court.

The said provision was challenged by way of a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India, wherein the Supreme Court vide order dated 13-01-2020 was pleased to order status quo with respect to the petitions already filed[8]. The matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court and we shall await the decision of the Supreme Court on this aspect which will be critical to the analysis of delegated powers to the executive under the Code, 2016.

However, despite the pendency of the said writ petition and the Ordinance being subject-matter of challenge, the Government went ahead and passed the aforesaid Ordinance as an Amendment Act on 13.03.2020. The passage of the ordinance as an Amendment Act on 13.03.2020 by retaining the same provision which was stayed by the Supreme Court, nullifies the writ petition pending adjudication and the order of the Supreme Court. However, that is a separate matter to be examined by the Court.

The Notification dated 24.03.2020 does not have such a proviso also as that of the Amendment Act of 2020, which makes things worse, as in both the litigants and the Courts will be clueless with respect to its applicability and the effect it would have on the pending petitions which are yet to be admitted. Hence, on this aspect also, the notification fails to satisfy the test of objectivity.

Thereafter, coming to the question of class-based legislation, the Notification dated 24.03.2020, completely ignores many aspects, namely, as far as the workmen are concerned, they must now rely on the trade unions to initiate or trigger insolvency, but again small trade unions with limited number of members will not be able to match the threshold. The Government by this way has pushed them to the already pre-existing alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On the other hand, if there is no trade union then the option under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 fizzles out, even though both workmen and employees are covered under the definition of “operational creditors.” However, such remedy does not seem plausible for employees, as they cannot be a part of a trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Hence, the employees who were in the process to approach the National Company Law Tribunal, now must take the alternate routes, as available under law even though they are time consuming and expensive.

Hence, here also it results in class-based distinction. For example, trade unions having a membership of over 200 will be able to achieve the threshold limit and other unions having a membership of 25 or 50 workmen cannot fulfil the threshold limit. The Trade Unions Act, 1926, however, prescribes the number of workmen required to register a trade union as seven. Hence, by default, there will be a sub-classification within a class; if a trade union is taken to be a class by itself.

Secondly, the small-scale distributors who supply goods, raw materials etc, but suffer from defaults in the hands of debtors, will have to fall back to the civil courts and file recovery suit or summary suit or a suit for specific performance, as the case may be.

The object of the Code to save the Indian economy from the backlash of bad debts and bringing the perpetrators to justice by tightening the noose of insolvency ends with this notification, as it will suit a particular class, which therefore turns out to be manifestly arbitrary.

For example, a small distributor of cotton yarn whose yearly billing with one manufacturer who takes supply of cotton yarn is around INR 20 lakhs, has to wait for 5 years from the date of default to reach the INR 1 crore mark but again will fail under the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 238-A of the Code, 2016 which says that the aggrieved must approach the court within 3 years of default, else it becomes time barred.

The Government prior to raising the threshold under the Code, had already issued an Office Memorandum dated 19.02.2020 with a clarificatory Office Memorandum dated 20.03.2020 covering the current situation of the country wide lockdown due to the pandemic under the “force majeure” clause (act of God) of the subsisting contracts.[9] Hence, the default on payments during this time could not have been considered as intentional defaults. The office memorandum could still be clarified further, saying, that the aforesaid force majeure clause shall apply to any transaction with effect from 19.2.2020 for a period of one year.

Neither the notification of increase of threshold under the Code, 2016 nor the office memorandums referred above have a retrospective effect whereby, the rights of the operational as well as the financial creditors which have accrued for the past one year or two years cannot suddenly be shut out by this action, which will result in manifest arbitrariness.

The ungazetted Notification dated 29.03.2020 published by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) with respect to the third amendment sought to be effected in the Insolvency and Bankruptcy  Board  of  India  (Insolvency  Resolution  Process  for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 vide Clause 40-C, is that, the period of lock-down as notified by the Government will not counted for the purposes of limitation or for the purposes of cause of action/defaults in payment. Therefore, the proposed Clause 40-C should have been enough to tackle the present situation rather than arbitrary action of the Executive by raising the threshold limit for triggering insolvency process, as it clearly says that the present period of lockdown shall not be counted for any purpose including defaults.

On the other hand, Reserve Bank of India, vide press statement dated 27.03.2020 granted a three-month moratorium to all term loans, outstanding as on 01.03.2020 from payment of equated monthly instalments (EMIs), which would cover the working capital loans, cash credit/overdraft loans, housing loans, etc. It has further been clarified that this moratorium will not affect the classification of the assets which are under hypothecation or mortgage.

On the legal aspect, we should examine the aforesaid Notification dated 24.03.2020 on the touchstone of Article 14 and see whether the notification passes the muster for the test of manifest arbitrariness as laid down by the  Supreme Court recently in the judgment of Hindustan Construction Company Ltd. v. Union of India[10]. The test of “manifest arbitrariness” involves a determination as to whether something is done capriciously, irrationally and/or without adequate determining principle by the legislature. Particularly, while applying this doctrine to a piece of legislation, the Court must examine whether that legislation is unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory, non-transparent, capricious, biased with favoritism or nepotism, and not in pursuit of promotion of healthy competition and equitable treatment.

Now, the aforesaid notification of increase of threshold is unreasonable and discriminatory qua financial creditors and operational creditors as financial creditors as a class gets to stay within framework and there is a sub-classification with the class of operational creditors wherein small and medium scale players lose out while on the contrary, the habitual defaulters who are within the definition of small scale industries to medium scale industries stand to benefit. Next, on the issue of equitable treatment, the notification as explained above creates a sub-class within the class of financial as well as operational creditors which the legislature in its wisdom chose not to do.

It is trite in law that there cannot be a sub-class within a class. Operational creditors taken as a class cannot be further segregated on the pre-emption that the defaults below INR 1 crore are suddenly not worth adjudicating under the IBC regime.

While the action of the executive may look fantastic at first brush, the same is definitely not backed up by reasons while the settled law is that class specific legislation is not supported by jurisprudence and we have settled precedents under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Further, the Government has issued a press statement specifying that they are contemplating suspension of the operation of Sections 7 to 10 of the Code, 2016 which provide for the mechanism for petitions by the Financial Creditors (Section 7) and by the operational creditors (under Sections 8 and 9 of IBC, 2016). The aforesaid notification of increase of threshold amount has already made the operation of Sections 7 to 9 of IBC, 2016, redundant as it will suit only a handful of big businessman/corporate houses, which fall within the ambit of operational creditors and big financial institutions who fall within the ambit of financial creditors. It will also suit home-buyers who have invested in big projects of worth more than a crore, while the small scale home buyers whose flats are worth INR 40-50 lakhs stand to lose out.

While Section 4 of IBC, 2016 gives the Government a prerogative to issue policy directions, but those policy directions must not be manifestly arbitrary and cannot result in sub-classification which ultimately runs contrary to the object and purpose of the legislature and of the statute itself.[11]

However, the notification for the reasons mentioned above if at all is put to test, in our opinion will have slim chances of getting approved, as it fails to stand on legs and pass the muster of manifest arbitrariness.

Going by the logic of the executive that is to safeguard the small scale and medium scale industries from getting doomed under the present scenario, militates against itself considering the invocation of force majeure clause which includes the present scenario and the moratorium announced by Reserve Bank of India for a period of three months. Therefore, the defaulter of less than INR 1 crore shall stand to benefit from all the three notifications while the small scale/medium scale companies stands to huge pecuniary loss who cannot resort to any remedy for realisation of its debts/losses. The statement issued by RBI  and the force majeure clause would have saved the defaulters for 3-6 months, whereas by this notification, the perpetual defaulters are saved from the rigours of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for eternity.


As it is said, an act of haste is not always advisable and good. The proper act of the Government should be to come out with a proper clarification of the notification as to its applicability with a proper provision dealing with pending matters.

In the alternative, the Government can altogether withdraw the notification and issue a notification as indicated by suspending Sections 7 to 10 of IBC, 2016 for a period of 6 months, as it will support the cause as intended by the Government through its Notification dated 19.2.2020 (force majeure) and the press statement issued by Reserve Bank of India on 27.03.2020.

If the aforesaid is not done, in all probability the noble cause might face difficulty if challenged before a court of law.

*This article has been co-authored by Mr Wasim Beg, Partner; L&L Partners Litigation, New Delhi and;

**Mr Swarnendu Chatterjee, Advocate-On-Record, Supreme Court of India and Senior Associate, L&L Partners, Litigation, New Delhi.

[1] (1955) 1 SCR 1045

[2] Section 238-A, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the Limitation Act, 1963.

[3] (2006) 2 SCC 740

[4] 1951 SCR 228

[5] Director General of Foreign Trade v. Kanak Exports, (2016) 2 SCC 226

[6] (1955) 2 SCR 225 .

[7] Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Act, 2020

[8] Manish Kumar v. Union of India, WP (Civil) No. 26 of 2020, order dated 13.01.2020

[9] OM No. 283/18/2020 and OM No. F/18/4/2020-PPD, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure.

[10] 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1520.

[11] Rashbihari Panda v. Union of India, (1969) 1 SCC 414

Image Credits:

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka, CJ, and Mohammad Nawaz, J. while allowing the State Government suggested the State Government to always exercise Regulation making power by incorporating a fair, transparent and reasonable procedure for allotment of the house/sites in Board/State Government quota.

The petitioner had knocked the doors of this Court through this petition seeking for declaring certain portions of the Karnataka Housing Board (Allotment) Regulations 1983 as amended by the Karnataka Housing Board (Allotment) (Amendment) Regulations, 2017 as unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Regulation 4 and Regulation 9-A of the said Regulations were substituted by the amendment Regulations.

Counsel for the petitioner, B. Vachan, contended that unguided and arbitrary discretion was conferred on the State Government to decide which applicants belong to the category of “persons in public life”. The category of “persons in public life” has been loosely defined which confers unguided and arbitrary discretion on the Government.

Additional Government Advocate submitted that the explanation in both the Regulations is sufficient and there are safeguards that contain sufficient guidelines. The said Regulations have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 76 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962.

As regards Regulation 4, in the discretionary quota of 10%, 25% of houses/sites are reserved for disposal as a Board quota to “persons in public life” and 25% of houses /sites are reserved as a Government quota to “persons in public life”. Under Regulation 9A, 10% of the stray houses/sites are reserved as a Government quota for “persons in public life”.

The Court observed that there cannot be any policy, much less, a rational policy of allotting land on the basis of applications made by individuals, bodies, organizations or institutions dehors an invitation or advertisement by the State or its agency/instrumentality.

In the case of Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies, (2009) 6 SCC 171, it was propounded that “disposal of the public property by the State or its instrumentalities partakes the character of trust. The methods to be adopted for disposal of public property must be fair and transparent providing an opportunity to all the interested persons to participate in the process.”

Hence, the categories ‘A’ and ‘C’ in Regulation 4 and category ‘C’ in Regulation 9-A as well as explanation (a) to both Regulations were struck down being unconstitutional. [Bhojappa K. v. State of Karnataka, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 1978, decided on 18-10-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: Shivaji Pandey, J. granted relief in a civil writ petition, brought before the Bench by an employee who assailed the wrong fixation of pay and pension, without any notice, and alleged the same to be an arbitrary use of power on the part of the respondent.

In the present case, the petitioner was appointed as a clerk and later promoted on the Junior Selection Grade with further promotion to Senior Selection Grade and continued on the said post. After the enforcement of 5th Pay Revision Commission, the need-based post was identified for each category including that for Head Clerk. 68 posts of Head Clerk were identified, and accordingly, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Head Clerk in the scale of pay of Rs 5000-8000. When the petitioner retired, his pension was fixed at the pay scale of Rs 5000-8000 for Rs 3843 per month but, later on, the Collector revised the number of need-based post to 29 and, accordingly, the petitioner was not considered in the berth as a Head Clerk and consequently his pay-scale reduced from 5000-8000 to 4000-6000 and, accordingly, his pension was also reduced causing persistent loss of Rs 500/- per month. He along with other employees had filed a suit for the same and they got a decision in their favor. However when the respondents did not abide by the decision, the petitioner, who suffered serious prejudice, was forced to file the present petition seeking the Court to command and direct the respondent to comply with the previously passed order whereunder, the Court had directed the respondents to issue show-cause to the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of show-cause.

The Court held that it is a well known principle of law that when an authority had taken any action prejudicial to the government servant, in such circumstances, it is expected that at least following the principle conforming to Article 14, a show-cause ought to have been served and, on reply, a decision as per law would be taken.

The Court thus, directed the respondent to identify the need-based post immediately and take a decision in the case of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.[Meghwarn Prasad Sinha v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 789, decided on 01-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: The Bench of P.V. Asha, J. was seized of civil writ petition where the issues were: (i) whether the recommendation in Justice K.J. Shetty Commission Report to grant advance increments to candidates having post-graduation in law applies to the District Judges also; and (ii) whether the order passed by Government on 23-11-2013 as modified on 17-11-2017 to the extent it limited advance increments only to those District Judges who were in service on 22-11-2013 was discriminatory.

Petitioner herein had commenced his service as a District Judge on 18-08-1995, on direct recruitment, was elevated as a Judge of this Court on 18-01-2012 and demitted office on 24-11-2015. At the time of his recruitment as District Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service, he was holding LLM Degree from the University of Kerala. He filed the instant petition seeking increment, as recommended by Shetty Commission.

The Court opined that Chapter 10 of the Shetty Commission Report dealt with direct recruitment to the cadre of District Judges. The said Chapter had no recommendation to grant incentives to Civil Judges (Senior Division) or the District Judges having higher qualification.

Further, it is settled law that whenever a new benefit is introduced it is open to the Government to fix a date so as to grant the benefit with effect from the date of the order or any particular date. Advance increments were granted as per government’s order to the District Judges having LLM, who were in service on 22-11-2013. Those who had already left service as on that date, either by retirement or elevation or otherwise, were automatically left out from the class. Therefore, classification of District Judges on such ground was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the above, the petition was dismissed. [A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 7429, decided on 13-11-2018]