Order Can't Be Termed "Mala Fide" Just Because It Is Illegal, Erroneous Or Perverse: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that every erroneous, illegal or even perverse order/action by a Statutory authority, by itself, cannot be termed as wanting in good faith or suffering from malafide. 

For imputing motives and drawing inference about want of good faith in any person, particularly a statutory authority, something more than mere error or fault ought to exist, the bench comprising Justices observed.

The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Moradabad, had approached the Apex Court challenging some adverse observations and remarks in a judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court, in its judgment, observed that his actions, leading to ex parte orders/proceedings without proper service of notice, were of deliberate attempt on the part of the department and the Assessing Authority adopted unfair tactics in getting the service effected in gross violation of the applicable rules.

The Court observed that even if such attempts, of serving notices, were held to be illegal or irregular by the High Court, its deduction that the impugned actions were deliberate or lacking in good faith is difficult to be endorsed. The bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose observed:

"We are of the view that even if the High Court found that the impugned actions of the authorities concerned, particularly of the appellant, had not been strictly in conformity with law or were irregular or were illegal or even perverse, such findings, by themselves, were not leading to an inference as corollary that there had been any deliberate action or omission on the part of the Assessing Authority or the Registering Authority; or that any 'tactics' were adopted, as per the expression employed by the High Court. Every erroneous, illegal or even perverse order/action, by itself, cannot be termed as wanting in good faith or suffering from malafide...

....In our view, for imputing motives and drawing inference about want of good faith in any person, particularly a statutory authority, something more than mere error or fault ought to exist. Nothing concrete is available on record to impute motives in the appellant, even if his actions/omissions while functioning as Assessing Authority otherwise called for disapproval."

The court, therefore expunged the remarks and observations against the appellant.

Case details

Chandra Prakash Mishra vs Flipkart India Private Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 359 | CA 2859-2861 OF 2022 | 30 March 2022

Coram: Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose

Headnotes

Administrative Law - Every erroneous, illegal or even perverse order/action by a Statutory authority, by itself, cannot be termed as wanting in good faith or suffering from malafide - For imputing motives and drawing inference about want of good faith in any person, particularly a statutory authority, something more than mere error or fault ought to exist.  (Para 13,16)

Summary: Appeal challenging adverse Remarks made in the Allahabad HC judgment regarding a Statutory authority -  Allowed - Even if the High Court found that the impugned actions of the authorities concerned, particularly of the appellant, had not been strictly in conformity with law or were irregular or were illegal or even perverse, such findings, by themselves, were not leading to an inference as corollary that there had been any deliberate action or omission on the part of the Assessing Authority or the Registering Authority; or that any 'tactics' were adopted.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment