Distribution Of State Largesse Must Be Reasonable, Policies Cannot Be Construed By Keeping Common Sense In "Cold Storage": Karnataka High Court
State instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution cannot act arbitrarily or unreasonably whilst considering the claim of citizens for the grant of State largesse, the Karnataka High Court has said. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the petition filed by a woman H. Gayathri seeking a direction to consider her application for awarding the retail...
State instrumentalities under Article 12 of the Constitution cannot act arbitrarily or unreasonably whilst considering the claim of citizens for the grant of State largesse, the Karnataka High Court has said.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the petition filed by a woman H. Gayathri seeking a direction to consider her application for awarding the retail outlet dealership on Besant Park Road at Doddaballapur by issuing an addendum to the Letter of Intent dated 30.06.2016 for incorporating alternate land, the one proposed earlier now not being available.
The respondent Union of India opposed the plea saying the petitioner could have approached the Grievance Redressal Cell availing in the official hierarchy and that the policy then in obtainment did not provide for consideration of applications of the kind in respect of lands other than the ones offered in the very application itself, although the new policy of 2018 would provide for that.
"The policy in question cannot be treated as a statutory instrument having no elements of elasticity; the fact that the new policy allows offering of alternate land, itself would come to the aid of petitioner...What heavens would have fallen down had the proposal for alternate land was considered by the statutory authority in compliance with the 2018 new policy, is not forthcoming despite lengthy arguments submitted on behalf of answering respondents; in construing policies of the kind common sense cannot be kept in cold storage," the Court said.
The bench noted that petitioner is a woman belonging to ST category and she had staked her claim for allotment of dealership vide application dated 18.10.2014. She is the sole applicant for the unit in question. The land offered by the petitioner belonged to another person who did not agree to certain terms and therefore petitioner after having an arrangement with another lady had proposed the land.
In this backdrop the Court observed,
"The application of the kind cannot be treated as land specific disregarding the difficulties that crop up in the arrangements of the kind and that what is to be seen by the authorities in the changed circumstances is the feasibility of considering the application in respect of alternate land offered...Contention of Panel Counsel appearing for the answering respondents that under the new policy of 2018 although there is scope for having the alternate land subject to feasibility, the policy then obtaining earlier did not admit of the proposal for alternate land, is bit difficult to agree with."
Following which it directed the Respondents to consider petitioner's application in accordance with law, within eight weeks. Delay if brooked shall be viewed seriously at the next level of litigation and heavy costs may be imposed on the erring official, the court cautioned.
Case Title: MS. H. GAYATHRI v UNION OF INDIA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.16 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 332
Date of Order: 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
Appearance: Advocate ASHOK B PATIL for petitioner; Advocate M.N. KUMAR, CGC FOR R1; Advocate N.J.KUMAR, FOR R2 TO R6