LexSTATE OF ASSAM versus TULSI SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. STATE OF ASSA~f v. TULSI SINGH (B.P. Sr:nIA, c .. J., K. SusBA RAO N. ltA.JAGOPALA AYYANGAR, J. R. MuDHOLKAR and T. L. VF.NKATAR~MA AIYAR, JJ.) Fcrry-Seltlement nf by auction-!11t!es-01tl~ of officer canduc!1'.ng s1!e -Spe:iri! I.Ji'>~ 1nJ.in!ained by Assci1n aovernmcnt of -persons su,pccted or coafit1w:,d l'J b"- c:>nn '!c!ei 1oit-li sn1.11,7glin'} activilies-Nat?Lre of document-If could be »died on for sdtlinq f!ivil right-tJ-High Court if CtJ1t'd (l~cirle m:11t-r,r entr1t.,fed fo execulive authoritie•-lndian Evid-.nce .4cl, 1872 (I of 1872). •.35-Norlhern India Ferrie.• Act, 1878 (17 of 1878), as. 4,8,12, r. 19. Under s. 4 of the Northern India Ferries Act, 1Ri8, the ferry at N was declared to be a puhlir ferry. Rule I 9 framed under s. 12 of the Act provided that a s>le of f~rry w.lS generally to ho auctioned to the highest bidder, and the acceptance of a hid by the officer conducting the sale was subject to the approval of the Chief Enginet-r \vho had to see v.rhcthcr that officer had taken into consideration all the factors mentioned in r. 19. Ferry at N \Vas put up tQ auction and sold to the second rcspo11dent whose bid \''as the lo·.vcst, Though the first respondent's hid was the highest, the officer conducting the S<lle, \vithout funning an opinion about the suitability of the first respondent ·on· his o\vn appreciation of matrrials as required under r. 19, rejected first respondent's hid straight -a\vay as his natne. appeared in the. "Speci;ll List"'. This "Special List" was prepared and maintained by the Government of Assain of persons suspected or con- firmed to be connrctcd v.•ith smuggling activities so that no permit or license may be o/anted to such pcrso ts. 'fiiis was in pursuance of thr. prohibition policy of the G )Vernricnt. The first respondent applied to the Chief Enginrcr for accept- ing his bid and settling the ferry on him which was rejected, whereupon he moved the High Court of Assam under Art. 226. The High Court set aside the settlement of the ferry in favour of the second respondent as bein~ violative of s. 8 of the Act and r. 19 and further dr.clarecl that tl1e first rc~pon dent was entitled to the scttleinerit as the highest bidder. Assam Government ca1ne up in appeal by special lea\'c to tlt<: · Surreme C.ourt. · 3 s.c.it. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 509 The question is whether a bid of a person at the auction of ferry can straightaway te rejected by the officer conducting the sale merely for the reason _that his name appears in the special list and w bet her the H1~h Court cc;>~ld decide a ,question was entrusted to the executive authorities under the Act and make setdement of the ferry. Held, that the discretion conferred on the officer conduct· ing the sale under s. 8 of the Northern Ferries Act read with r. 19 framed under the Act is wide but not unrestricted. The discretion must be based on the material before him and rrlevant for his consideration and if, on a consideration thereof, he declines to exercise his discretion to accept the bid, his decision is not liable to be reversed by the courts,. But where there is no material before him on basis of which he rejects a bid his action amounts to non-compliance with the provisions of r. 19 and cannot be upheld. Held, further, that the "Special List" maintained by the Government of Assam of persons suspected or confirmed to be connected with smuggling activities is not a document falling withins. 35 of the Indian Evidence Act and while such list might serve a purpose in guiding Criminal Intelligence Department, it will be unsafe to re1y on it for deciding civil rights of a person. Held, also, that even though the order of authorities is riot in accordance with Jaw, it was for the appropriate authori- ties. to deal with the matter and the High Court could not itself decide '\'hat is entrusted to the executive authorities. Verappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd., [1952] S.C R. 583, followed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated July ll, 1961, of the Assam High Court in Civil Rule Nu. 64 of HJ6l. Naunit Lal, for the appellantB. The respondent did not appear. 1962 State of.A.ssrm •• Tulri Singh 1962 Slate of .A.ss.im v. Trdsi Sm1h Ai1arJ. ~io SUPI~EME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 1962. March I. The Judgment of the Court waa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.