J.P. BANSAL versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 12-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

J.P. BANSAL 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF RAJAS THAN AND ANR. 
MARCH 12, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 166 and 310(2)-Rajasthan Taxes 
and Tribunal Act, 1995-Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal (Repeal) Ordinance, 
1999-Section 4(b)-Tenure appointment as member in State Taxation C 
Tribunal-Subsequent abolition of the Tribunal-Post automatically coming 
to an end-Claim for compensation for the balance tenure by appointee-
Reliance on cabinet decision-Claim rejected by courts below-On appeal, 
held: Appointee not entitled to compensation-Cabinet decision cannot be 
construed as Government Order as the action was not taken by competent 
authority in the name of head of the State-There was no stipulation regarding D 
compensation in the contract of appointment and hence Article 310(2) is not 
applicable-No liability to pay compensation is incurred under the repealed 
Act-Theory of legitimate expectation is not applicable in the facts of the 
case-Administrative Law-Theory of Legitimate Expectation. 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
E 
Elementa1y principle of interpreting a statute is to gather the mens or 
sententia legis of the legislature - Where language of the statute is clear, the 
intention is to be gathered from the language used - Where the intention of 
legislature is conveyed, Judge should not proclaim to play role of law maker 
- There is distinction between adjudication and legislation - Judicial Propriety. F 
Appellant was appointed judicial member of Rajasthan Taxation 
Tribunal in terms of Notification issued by Finance Department of 
Respondent-State under Rajasthan Taxes and Tribunal Act, 1995. 
Subsequently he was appointed to discharge functions of Chairman of the G 
Tribunal till the appointment of new Chairman. State Government issued 
Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal (Repeal) Ordinance, 1999 abolishing the 
Tribunal and the matters and proceedings pending before it, stood 
automatically transferred to High Court. On abolition of Tribunal 
continuance of appellant as Chairman also automatically came to an end. 
933 
H 
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellant filed writ petition claiming compensation for the balance 
tenure of his 'appointment. He relied on the cabinet decision to release his 
salary for the balance period. Single Judge of High Court dismissed the 
writ petition holding that no interference was called for as the Tribunal 
itself was abolished; that exact amount of compensation could only be 
B decided by competent Court after taking evidence of the parties; that the 
cabinet decision was a matter of discretion of the Government and it was 
open to the appellant to make a representation to the concerned 
authorities. Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of High Court. 
Appellant contended that the decision of the Cabinet was enforceable 
C as the same partook the character of Government Order under Article 
166 of the Constitution; that compensation was payable in view of Article 
310(2) of the Constitution; that under Section 4(b) of the Ordinance, any 
obligation or liability accrued or incurred under the Act repealed are not 
affected by the repeal; and that since there has been violation of the 
legitimate expectation of the appointee to continue till the end of the tenure 
D period, by application of the principle of legitimate expectation, the State 
Government was bound to pay compensation irrespective of whether there 
was any Cabinet decision earlier or not. 
Respondent-State contended that there was no Cabinet decision; that 
even ifthere would have been any such Cabinet decision, it could not meet 
E the requirement of a Government Order as envisaged under Article 166 
of the Constitution; that the termination of appointment came to be 
effectuated on the basis of legislative action, therefore, there was no scope 
for grant of any compensation; that the principles of legitimate expectation 
or Section 4(b) of the Ordinance have no application to the facts of the 
p case. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The decision of the Cabinet cannot be construed as 
Government Order. It has not been established that there was any 
G Government Order in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution. The 
Constitution requires that action must be taken by the authority concerned 
in the name of the Governor. It is not till this formality is observed that 
the action can be regarded as that of the State. Constitutionally spea

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.