Case Law Details
Gayathri Vs Union of India (Karnataka High Court)
(a) Petitioner is a woman belonging to ST category and she had staked her claim for allotment of dealership vide application dated 18.10.2014, is not in dispute; petitioner happens to be the sole applicant for the unit in question, is also not in dispute; the land offered by the petitioner belonged to another person who did not agree to certain terms and therefore petitioner after having an arrangement with another lady had proposed the land to the said lady. The counsel for the petitioner submits and this court has no reason to doubt that the arrangement for having the alternate land at some stage had involved the officials of the answering respondents herein.
(b) There is force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the application of the kind cannot be treated as land specific disregarding the difficulties that crop up in the arrangements of the kind and that what is to be seen by the authorities in the changed circumstances is the feasibility of considering the application in respect of alternate land offered; the counter contention of Panel Counsel appearing for the answering respondents that under the new policy of 2018 although there is scope for having the alternate land subject to feasibility, the policy then obtaining earlier did not admit of the proposal for alternate land, is bit difficult to agree with; the policy in question cannot be treated as a statutory instrument having no elements of elasticity; the fact that the new policy allows offering of alternate land, itself would come to the aid of petitioner, no contra intention emanating from 2018 new policy that the pending cases would not be covered by its terms. This court is not very sure whether an argument of non-prospectivity avails to the respondent-authorities to deny relief to the aggrieved citizens in matters like this. After all the bar against retrospectivity enacted under Article 20 of the Constitution is confined to criminal law, and therefore cannot be invoked in matters of this kind. It is pertinent to recall what Lord Denning said: “The rule that an Act of Parliament is not to be given retrospective effect applies only to statutes which affect vested rights. It does not apply to statutes which only alter the form of procedure or the admissibility of evidence, or the effect which the courts give to evidence” (BLYTH vs. BLYTH (1966) 1 ALL ER 524).
(c) What heavens would have fallen down had the proposal for alternate land was considered by the statutory authority in compliance with the 2018 new policy, is not forthcoming despite lengthy arguments submitted on behalf of answering respondents; in construing policies of the kind common sense cannot be kept in cold storage. Ours being a Welfare State, the respondents who happen to be instrumentalities of the State under Article 12, cannot act arbitrarily or unreasonably whilst considering the claim of citizens for the grant of State largesse.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
