Discretion

It is not proper exercise of discretion to refuse relief to a party to which it is entitled under law.

Statutory discretion is to be exercised by the authority or officer on which it is conferred; most fundamentally, it must be exercised reasonably.

Statutory discretion is to be exercised by the authority or officer on which it is conferred; most fundamentally, it must be exercised reasonably.

When discretion is conferred upon the authority, it is that authority alone which has to exercise discretion by its own independent mind after taking into consideration all relevant factors and the object of conferring such a discretion

Such authority should not be influenced by improper motive or improper purpose and must not allow its personal interest and beliefs to influence it in the exercise of its statutory powers, but must exercise such powers impartially and should not pre-judge the case

Even the higher authority cannot provide any guideline or direction to the authority under the statute, to act in a particular manner

Quasi-judicial authority cannot afford to act on the direction of a superior officer or authority

Once a discretion is vested with a certain authority, it alone should exercise that discretion vested under the statute and if it acts in accordance with "the direction or any compliance with some higher authorities instruction" it would be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether.

Neither in plaint nor in agreement between parties there was any reference of previous litigation or plea of execution of agreement after such litigation or settlement of issue nor was the property described with reference to any previous litigation

In absence of foundation in plaint of facts pertaining to previous litigation and also particulars of revenue record and that of Excise and Taxation Department, with reference to such previous litigation either in agreement or in plaint, any evidence produced by respondent / plaintiff for such fact was inadmissible

Such important aspects of the matter and deficiency in agreement were ignored by Trial Court which had serious reflection on the fate of the claim under adjudication

Plea of oral agreement as to alleged commercialization of property or commitment to allow adjustment of commercialization expenses from sale consideration was not part of agreement, therefore, was inadmissible

Respondent / plaintiff did not prove that he had funds to pay balance consideration as relevant statement of accounts were not produced and only account statement pertaining to earnest money was produced

Respondent / plaintiff did not even tender amount in Court nor ever attempted to deposit balance consideration till passing of decree

Respondent / plaintiff's intention was visible and he had not proved his readiness and willingness to perform the contract by paying balance consideration, therefore, relief of specific performance could not be granted

High Court dismissed suit filed by respondent / plaintiff and set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

All judicial, quasi judicial, and administrative authorities must exercise power in a reasonable manner and also must ensure justice as per the spirit of law and instruments regarding exercise of discretion

Obligation to act fairly on the part of administrative authority has been evolved to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice

Object of good governance cannot be achieved by exercising discretionary powers unreasonably, arbitrarily and without following due process of law such as issuance of a show cause notice of allegations, an inquiry and an opportunity of hearing and thereafter the decision of the matter through speaking and reasoned orders

Objective of protection of fundamental rights of the citizens and due and fair administration of executive actions and justice can be achieved by following rules of justness, fairness and openness in consonance with the command of the Constitution.

Discretionary statutory power can only be exercised on a ground to achieve an object or purpose that is lawfully within the contemplation of that statute.

It applies to delegation of powers made by the legislature on subordinate authorities to be exercised within confines of the powers mentioned in the primary legislation itself

It is in those cases that issues relating to structuring of discretion arise on the basis of which courts can decide whether the delegatee has exceeded power conferred upon it by the delegator.

Where discretion is granted by Legislature to an authority to be exercised in a variety of circumstances that discretion is intended to be exercised by the repository without placing any fetters on such jurisdiction.

If only one course can lawfully be adopted, the decision taken is not the exercise of a discretion but performance of a duty

Concept of discretion refers to decisions where law does not dictate a specific outcome or where the tribunal is given a choice of options within a statutorily imposed set of boundaries.

In order to achieve goal of non-arbitrary agency decision making, agencies must supply standards that discipline their discretion

Such rule requires decisional consistency to safeguard expectation.

Discretionary decision should be made according to rational reasons, otherwise the decision would be arbitrary and might be considered misuse of power.

Lump sum payments were to be made to plaintiff under the contract against completion of specific milestones and not against any delivery of specific equipment

Defendant authorities terminated the contract for failure of plaintiff company to achieve required milestones in time frame fixed in contract

Validity

Defendant authorities issued purchase orders and contracts entered into because of extreme urgency created by plaintiff's failure to complete project almost three years after completion date

Continued extraction and resulting depletion of gas from same reservoir by other companies from adjacent fields and further delay would result in the purpose of the project defeated as no gas could be left to produce

Even if such purchase orders were issued and contracts were entered in violation of Public Procurement Rules, 2004, that would not entitle plaintiff to specific performance of the contract and at the best it required defendant authorities to issue new tenders for the equipment and remaining work resulting in the contract to remain terminated

Unless plaintiff proved otherwise, Court had to presume that money was adequate compensation for breach of contract

Contract could not be specifically enforced and no injunction could be granted to prevent its breach

Plaintiff failed to establish that money would not adequately compensate it for breach of contract, even if the contract was an agreement for sale of goods, it could not be specifically enforced under S.58 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930

Even if restrictions under Ss.12 & 21 of Specific Relief Act, 1877, could be circumvented and it was not an agreement for specific and ascertained goods

Plaintiff could provide defendant authorities with any Amine or HCDP package

High Court was to decide a private dispute in its civil original jurisdiction under S.9, C.P.C., which jurisdiction was circumscribed by law

High Court could not grant any relief which was specifically barred by a statute

High Court was bound by restrictions prescribed in Specific Relief Act, 1877

Relief of injunction was discretionary and Court was not bound to grant it in every case and it was not to be granted unless Court was satisfied as to its real need

Discretion was to be exercised in accordance with reasons and sound judicial principles

Court while dealing with application for grant of injunction had to look and assess all circumstances obtaining the suit and more so to equitable relief

Discretion vested in Court of law had to be exercised judicially and equitably ensuring all the times that justice was adequately applied and administered

High Court declined to grant interim injunction in favour of plaintiff as it failed to make out a prima facie case in its favour

Application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Discretion must be used to promote policy and objects of Act.

Authorities entrusted with statutory discretions are entitled to take into consideration public policy and in this regard policy of government may be a relevant factor.

Exercise of discretion always has to be structured and has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner.

Discretion cannot be exercised in an arbitrary or fanciful manner but judiciously and in accordance with settled norms of justice, equity and fair play.

Discretion cannot be exercised in an arbitrary or fanciful manner but judiciously and in accordance with settled norms of justice, equity and fair play.

Person found guilty under S.302(b), P.P.C. can either be punished with death or with imprisonment for life and it is a misconception to say that death is the normal penalty provided for murder

Legislature has not provided any guideline as to when a person is to be punished with death or in what circumstances he is to be sentenced to imprisonment for life, therefore, it can safely be inferred that quantum of sentence depends upon the discretion of court.

Word "may" in S.22-A(6) Cr.P.C. manifested the intention of Legislature that Justice of Peace was still left with discretion to pass an order for registration of F.I.R. only in appropriate/certain cases.

Government functionaries are expected to use the discretionary powers in such a way that the person(s) against whom that discretion is exercised faces certain appreciable disadvantages which he would not have faced otherwise as improper use of discretionary powers can lead to discrimination.

Discretion to be structured and exercised justly, fairly and in transparent manner.

Section 540, Cr.P.C. has two parts: first part confers wide jurisdiction on the court to summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined; second part places an obligation on the court to summon and examine or recall or re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to a just decision of the case

Court, in exercising discretion under the first part, will have to show the regard to the basic principles of a fair trial

Court, under the second part, has no discretion; overriding consideration over the second part is the duty of the court to do justice

If the court comes to the conclusion that the evidence of any person is essential to the just decision of the case, the evidence of that person must be made part of the record of the case in accordance with law.

When a Government functionary or statutory body was vested with discretionary powers then same were to be exercised in a structured manner

Discretion was to be exercised in a fair, just and reasonable manner.

Power to issue a commission to examine any person; to make local investigation; to examine or adjust accounts; or to make a partition, stemmed from S.75, C.P.C. was subject to conditions and limitations as might be prescribed by O.XXVI, C.P.C.

Order XXVI, R.2, C.P.C. expressly empowered the court to issue a commission for examination of a witness on its own motion

When the court exercised power under O.XXVI, R.2, C.P.C. to issue a commission to examine witnesses on its own motion, such was largely a matter of discretion of the court not circumscribed by the conditions set out in O.XXVI, Rr.1 & 4, C.P.C.

Law does not recognize absolute and unfettered discretion and discretionary powers ought to be exercised in accordance with well-established principles

In exercise of discretionary powers a court is not empowered to act arbitrarily or in a mechanical manner, rather it is circumscribed by law, recognized norms of justice, fair play, equity, logic, rationality and reasonableness.

Plaintiff filed suit for declaration and possession of land wherein she claimed that defendants had illegally and in an unauthorized manner occupied the suit land

Trial Court restrained the defendants from alienating the suit property, however, allowed them to raise construction thereon

Appellate Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court and directed the parties to maintain status quo

Plea of revenue department was that suit land was owned by government and that defendant was not entitled to construct residential house thereon

Validity

Issuance of injunction subject to condition, being a matter of discretion of Trial Court, could not have been interfered with unless condition attached was arbitrary or not in consonance with attending circumstances of the case

Land revenue department had neither filed appeal nor cross-objections in the Appellate Court against the order of Trial Court, therefore, it was estopped by its conduct and admission to challenge the order passed by Trial Court

Order passed by Appellate Court was set aside and that of Trial Court was maintained

Revision petition was accepted accordingly.

Public functionaries vested with power in respect of determination of rights of citizens regarding state resources are required to exercise such power and discretion fairly and properly on judicial principles and keeping in view the relevant considerations having logical nexus with the object of law and not arbitrarily and whimsically.

Exercise of judicial power would inevitably take care of the evil consequences which would likely to flow out of its intemperate use

Every kind of judicial discretion would be used with due care and caution

Awareness of the context in which discretion was required to be exercised and of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of its use was the hall mark of a prudent exercise of judicial discretion.

When Legislature entrusts to an authority any power to pass order in its discretion, such order passed by that authority in exercise of that discretion is, in general, not liable to be interfered with by appellate Court, unless it can be shown to have been based on some mistake of facts or misapprehension of principles applicable thereto.

Law did not permit an authority to exercise its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

Discretion should be exercised honestly, fairly, judicially and in accordance with law and rules.

Discretion should be exercised in a judicial manner.

Discretionary powers, even under a self-executing provision, needed to be structured to ensure just, fair and transparent exercise of discretionary powers.

Advertisement was made for appointment of Assistant Accounts Officer (BS-16) on permanent basis and recommendations were also sent for the same, however, appointment letter was issued on contract basis

Validity

Procedural requirements had been fulfilled in the case of petitioners

Lawful right had accrued in favour of petitioners

No justification existed for issuance of appointment letter against the post on contract basis

No policy could override the provisions of law

No provision existed for making appointment against civil posts on contract basis in the Province

Impugned action of the authorities was not sustainable in the eye of law

Public power must be exercised reasonably and honestly

Public functionaries were bound to treat the cases of employees/subordinates fairly, justly and without arbitrariness

Act of authorities being discriminatory was illegal

Authorities was directed to issue revised/fresh order against the post on regular basis with effect from appointment of petitioners and grant all consequences service benefits from the said date

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Discretion must be exercised reasonably, judiciously, honestly, objectively and in the public interest.

Public functionaries should exercise discretion within the framework of law.

Discretion had to be exercised judicially and not in arbitrary or capricious manner.

Whenever any discretion was given to an Authority it had to be exercised not arbitrarily, but honestly, justly and fairly in consonance with the spirit of law after application of judicious mind and for substantial reasons.

While passing the impugned order, Single Judge of High Court had correctly observed and drawn tentative view and there was no occasion to interfere with the discretionary interim relief

Appellate Court was not justified to interfere with exercise of discretion

Interim order would merge into final order and interim order would cease to exist automatically on announcement of final order, therefore, any direction given in term order would also cease to exist

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere with discretionary interim relief ranted by Single Judge of High Court by deciding interlocutory application

Intra-court appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Principles.

Discretion will become an act of discrimination when the same was improper or capricious exercise or abuse of discretionary authority and person against whom that discretion was exercised faced certain appreciable disadvantages which he would not have faced otherwise.

Legal discretion, was not a sweet will, it must be exercised with reason and keeping in view the logic of the rules and law which vested the authority with the discretion.

Discretion had to be subject to reason and law.

Principles.

Administrative compulsion and wisdom to structure discretion as in R.19 of Punjab Procurement Rules, 2009, is to remove human subjectivity from exercise of discretion

Constitutional and jurisprudential importance of structured discretion is that it nursed requirement of due process, fairness and fair trial and safeguards unbridled discretion against voice of discrimination and arbitrariness.

Authorities could not be allowed to exercise discretion at their whims, sweet will or in an arbitrary manner, rather they were bound to act fairly and justly.

Discretion has to be structured and cannot be unfettered.

Discretionary power is not exercised in arbitrary, perverse or capricious manner but is guided by sound judicial principles

Equity jurisdiction is flexibility inherent in discretionary nature

Flexibility and discretion to decide case after taking into consideration all relevant matters that tend towards justice or injustice of granting remedy that is sought such as hardship, laches, unfairness, lack of clean hands, and so on and by weighing them against each other in order to decide whether particular relief that is in question should be granted in absolute, partial or conditional form or else refused.

Where discretion was to be exercised by a court, the same should not be arbitrary but should be based on sound reasoning.