LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. versus SANYAM LODHA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2011) 10 S.C.R. 662 STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. SANYAM LODHA (Civil Appeal No. 7333 of 2011) AUGUST 25, 2011 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] RAJASTHAN CHIEF MINISTER'S RELIEF FUND RULES, 1999: Rule 5 rlw r. 4 - Chief Minister's Relief Fund -Writ petition alleging arbitrary and discriminatory disbursement of relief:to · minor victims of rape , and seeking direction that monetary relief of Rs. 5 lakhs be granted to each of such victim - 0 Allowed by High Court - High Court further substituting r. 5 - Held - The Relief Fund Rules are not delegated legislation, but are norms/guidelines issued in exercise of executive_ power of State under Article 162 of the Constitution and were not under challenge in the writ petition - Therefore, High Court ought not to have modified or read down r. 5 - Relief Fund E Rules do not create any right in any victim to claim monetary relief nor do they provide any scheme for grant of compensation to rape victims - Grant of relief amount thereunder is purely ex gratia at the discretion of the Chief Minister and may depend upon several circumstances - F There are detailed guidelines and checks and balances in regard to disbursement of the Relief Fund with a residuary discretionary power with the Chief Minister - The payment made to a victim from Relief Fund cannot form the basis for issuing a direction to pay similar amounts to other victims of G rape - Nor can it be held that failure to give uniform ex gratia relief is arbitrary or unconstitutional - However, it may be appropriate to include a sub-category relating to rape victims under category (i) or (iii) of r. 4 - Administrative Law - Norms/ guidelines-Modification suggested - Constitution of India, H 662 . STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. v. SANYAM LODHA 663 1950 - Articles 14 and 162 - Delegated legislation. A ADMINISTRATIVE. ~AW: Prime Minister's/Chief Minister's Relief Fund - Nature and purpose of - Explained. High Office theory/Doctrine of Office of Trust - Residuary discretionary power vested in Prime Minister/Chief Minister B to sanction financial assistance from the Relief Fund - The Relief Funds placed at the disposal of the holders of high office like Prime Minister or Chief Ministers of States are to c provide timely assistance to victims of natural calamities, disasters, and traumatic experiences, or to provide medical or financial aid to persons in distress and needy, among other purposes - The purposes for which such Relief Funds could be utilized are clearly laid down, subject to the residuary 0 discretion vested in the Prime Minister/Chief Minister to grant relief in unforeseen. circumstances - The Prime Minister/ Chief Minister is given the discretion to choose the recipient of the relief, the quantum of the relief, and the timing of grant of such relief - Unless such discretion is given, in E extraordinary circumstances not contemplated in the guidelines, the Relief Fund may not serve its purpose - When discretion is vested in a high public functionary, it is assumed that the power will be exercised by applying reasonable standards to achieve the purpose for which the discretion is F vested. Prime Minister's/Chief Minister's Relief Fund - Exercise of discretion in disbursement of monetary relief under - . Judicial review of- Held: Whenever the discretion is exercised for making a payment from out of the Relief Fund, the court G . will assume thatit was done in public interest and for public .. good, for just and proper reasons - Consequently, where anyone challenges the exercise of the discretion, he should establish prima facie that the exercise of discretion was arbitrary, ma/a fide or by way of nepotism to favour H 664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 10 S.C.R. 'A undeserving candidates with ulterior motives. - Where such a prima facie case is made out, the court may require the authority to produce material to satisfy itself that the discretion has been used for good and valid reasons, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case - But in general, the B discretion will not be open to question - Judicial review. The respondent, a legislator and social activist, filed a writ petition before the High Court stating that disbursement of relief under the Chief Minister's Relief Fund (Relief Fund) in terms of the Rajasthan Chief C Minister's Relief Fund Rules, 1999 (the Relief Fund Rules) was arbitrary and discriminator
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.