Mala Fides

Any deviation from the established procedural and statutory provisions constitutes a violation of law and procedure, consequently rendering the order illegal and mala fide.

Mala fides will not be attributed to the Legislature.

Scope and standard of proof.

Distinction.

Distinction.

Petitioners were members of a cooperative society appointed at different positions who were facing investigation before NAB, on various charges

Validity

Signatures of two of the petitioners who were Chairman and Vice Chairman/Acting Chairman enabled cross cheques which were issued to another petitioner

Same were converted into cash cheques which were payable and were paid directly to another petitioner who got awarded contracts to fraudulent companies and was paid vast amounts through those companies which had done no work as per contract

No Board resolution was available in support of appointment of persons, award of contracts or payment of cash cheques and only unauthorized signatures of two petitioners were present

During tenure of one accused who was former Chairman and was excluded from reference, landing reports showed that trash fish was received and was duly recorded which was not the case in tenure of petitioners

No mala fides were noticed on the part of NAB in respect of petitioners

Number of prosecution witnesses were also witnesses in another reference and had resiled from their statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C. through their affidavits

Possibility that other prosecution witnesses could not be intimidated and/or induced into resiling on their statements could not be ruled out

Bail was declined in circumstances.

Mala fide could not be attributed to the legislature but if a legislature deliberately and repeatedly embarked upon a venture to nullify considered judicial verdict in an unlawful manner, trample the constitutional mandate and violate the law then it was difficult to attribute bona fide to it either.

Action or decision is said to be suffering from mala fide on facts if it is taken due to some personal grudge, animosity, or for some personal benefit

State of mind of person taking action is of great importance.

Employee (petitioner) was not a government servant but was an employee of Local Government Board which was an autonomous body

Where a person complained of the violation of statutory rules or had challenged an order which was tainted with mala fides then constitutional petition was maintainable

Employee was ordered to be repatriated to an authority which had ceased to exist and had become defunct

Validity

Employee was not treated fairly, justly and equitably

Transfer of employee was not in the public interest or was not necessitated by an exigency or his services were not required for a particular post or for a particular station

Employee had been made an officer-on-special duty and had been left in the lurch

If courts of law countenanced and approved such exercise of authority then it would make a mockery of law and travesty of justice

Such acts of department would not give a message of hope to the honest and scrupulous persons and might tend to undermine their confidence

Employees of government or autonomous bodies were not to be made rolling stones

Impugned order passed by the department was declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect and authority

Employee would continue to discharge his duties at the place where he was performing the same prior to his transfer

Impugned order was set aside

Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.

Courts could determine their existence on probabilities to be inferred from the circumstances.

Building Control Authority issued a notification in respect of widening of service roads, and in pursuance of said notification demolished certain part of the project to widen a service road

Issue of raising of disputed construction had already been settled in favor of petitioner, by the High Court through a judgment

Said judgment of High Court had been challenged before the Supreme Court, but the matter was still pending, wherein neither any interim orders were passed nor the operation of the judgment of the High Court was suspended

Notification to widen service roads was issued after the judgment of the High Court, thus it defeated and flouted the directions of the High Court, and was based on mala fides

Notification in question had a direct effect on the vested rights accrued to the petitioner on the basis of the judgment of the High Court

Notification could not be applied retrospectively as vested rights had accrued to the petitioner after passing of judgment of the High Court

Building Control Authority and City District Government ought to have implemented the judgment of the High Court by taking steps which were in conformity with the said judgment, instead of entering into an exercise of road widening and defeating the directions in the judgment

Notification was approved for such portion of the project which was never available for a road widening scheme and was in fact a part and parcel of the petitioner's property on which the said project was being constructed

Building Control Authority and City District Government could not satisfy the court that the road widening scheme was necessary in the larger public interest

Widening of service road was not understandable, when the same was not a through road, and when other main roads of the city were in dire need of widening

In terms of Regulation 16.2.2 of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002, the Building Control Authority was required to issue a public notice and to call for the objections from the general public before initiating any road widening scheme, however, in the present case, no such public notice was ever issued before taking up the decision to widen the roads

Both parties jointly appointed an engineering service company as Commissioner to prepare a report regarding the legality and conformity of the project with the approved plan and relevant laws and regulations

Said report mentioned that project in question was constructed as per approved plans

Demolition of the disputed construction was, thus, unlawful

Impugned notification to widen service roads was set-aside for being issued in violation of the law, relevant rules and procedure, and directions of the High Court

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Matter would then have to be resolved and adjudicated by appropriate legal forum of competent jurisdiction.

Court could look into and evaluate mala fides from facts and circumstances of the case.

Comp-lainant filed application under S. 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. before Justice of Peace alleging that proposed accused persons (government officials) entered into his house and dispossessed him from his lawful property by demolishing his house

Justice of Peace dismissed said application

Validity

Committee appointed to inquire into the issue concluded that allegations levelled by complainant were false; that complainant had illegally occupied property of District Council, and that accused persons were removing such illegal encroachments

Neither complainant furnished any proof with regard to his ownership over the subject property nor any allotment order was produced

Application was dismissed accordingly.

Male fides literally means in bad faith and action taken in bad faith is usually action taken maliciously, in which the person taking the action does so out of personal motives either to hurt the person against whom the action is taken or to benefit oneself.

Mala fides literally means in bad faith and action taken in bad faith is usually action taken maliciously, in which the person taking the action does so out of personal motives either to hurt the person against whom the action is taken or to benefit oneself.

Simply because petitioner might have been a contender for the office of Chairman OGRA, the same did not per se translate into mala fides.

Malice and mala fides are questions of fact which have to be proved by leading evidence, in absence of which no adverse presumption can be drawn regarding proceedings initiated under the law and order passed by competent authority

Mere vague allegation of mala fides would be of no avail.

Bona fides are to be presumed unless the party challenging the action is able to substantiate that the action was mala fide or without any grounds whatsoever.

Manner of exercising of power in violation of law is also termed as mala fide.

Malice and mala fide are questions of fact which have to be proved by leading evidence, in absence of which no adverse presumption can be drawn regarding proceedings initiated under the law and order passed by competent authority

Mere vague allegation of mala fide would be of no avail.

Material particulars of mala fides have to be given in the body of the petition before a person can be allowed to allege and prove the same.

Manner of exercising of power in violation of law is also termed as mala fides.

Allegation of mala fides was to be substantiated with reality.

Onus is entirely upon the person alleging mala fides to establish it, because to start with a presumption of regularity is attached to all official acts and until that presumption is rebutted, the action cannot be challenged merely upon a vague allegation of mala fides

Mala fides must be pleaded with particularity, and once one kind of mala fides is alleged, no one should be allowed to adduce proof of any other kind of mala fides, nor should any enquiry be launched upon merely on the basis of vague and indefinite allegations

Person alleging mala fides should also not be allowed a roving inquiry into the files of the Government for the purposes of fishing out some kind of mala fides in the case.

Principles.

General allegations of mala fides are not sustainable in the eye of law.

Presumption as to official act is t6 be decided in favour of officials and their orders cannot be disturbed on mere allegations but such allegations are required to be proved.

Allegation of mala fides requires proof of a high order owing to its serious nature and the burden of proof lies heavily on the person who makes it.

Mala fides was not to be attributed to the Legislature.

When action is based on mala fides then the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

Person alleging mala fides cannot be, allowed a roving enquiry into files-of Government for purpose of fishing out some kind of a case

Principles.

First Information Report in a case was recorded by the Station House Officer of the Police Station and subsequently on receipt of a letter from the complainant he amended the F.I.R. and added snore provisions therein without examining the added provisions

Effect

Later act of the S.H.O. did not only constitute a legal mala fide but for all purposes it was a mala fide, in fact.

Allegation of mala fides can be asserted easily, but difficult to prove.

Allegation of mala fides can be asserted easily, but difficult to prove.

General allegation of mala fides is not sustainable in the eye of law.

Onus is entirely upon the person alleging mala fides to establish the same, because there is presumption of regularity with regard to all official acts and until such presumption is rebutted the action cannot be challenged merely upon a vague allegation of mala fides.

Malice has to be specifically alleged and is to be proved by the person who levels such allegation.

Mala Fides Mala fides must he specifically pleaded, clarified and explained so that its nature was known which could then be subject to scrutiny by the Court.

Whatever was done in violation of law could not be said to be done in good faith and what was not done in good faith was mala fides.

Mala fide action is an action without jurisdiction.

Mala Fides Once a mala fide act has been perpetrated by one Government that can be interfered with by next Government when there were proofs of such mala fides.

Mala fides would be difficult to prove, for it related to mind of individual for which no substantive evidence was possible to be led but same must be inferred from facts and circumstances of each case.

Mala fides cannot be imputed to the Parliament.

If sufficient material was produced before a Court and a tentative view was formed by a Court that such material constituted an element of mala fides on part of Authority, suit would be maintainable subject to proof of such mala fides burden of which lay upon plaintiff.

Distinction.

If, however, malice is imputed for procuring order which from circumstances seemed to be possible then unless the same is explained or rebutted, that would be difficult to justify it.

Where no material was brought on record in proof of mala fides allegation of mala fides could not be accepted.

Plea of mala fides was not proved in circumstances.

Notice served upon petitioner was suggestive of the fact that Authority was acting against petitioner in retaliation to some civil suit which was filed by petitioner against some member of the staff of the Authority

Mala fides of the Authority was apparent from the record in circumstances.