1964 (10) TMI 90 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies mandatory provisions for descendants of ruling chiefs under Section 5(3)

The Supreme Court held that Section 5(3) of the Act mandates the State Government to grant money or pension to descendants of former ruling chiefs under ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the provisions of Section 5(3) of the Central Provinces and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948, are mandatory or discretionary.2. Whether the State Government's rejection of the appellants' petition without providing reasons was lawful.3. Whether the High Court's interpretation of Section 5(3) was correct.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Mandatory or Discretionary Nature of Section 5(3)The core issue is whether Section 5(3) of the Act mandates the State Government to grant money or pension to descendants of former ruling chiefs who lost their land revenue exemptions under the Act. The appellants argued that the section is mandatory, while the State contended it is discretionary.- Provisions and Interpretation: Section 5(3) states that the Provincial Government 'may make a grant of money or pension' for the maintenance of any family of a descendant of a former ruling chief. The High Court interpreted this as discretionary, but the Supreme Court found this interpretation erroneous. The Court held that the word 'may' in Section 5(3) must be read as 'shall' or 'must' when the conditions precedent (i.e., loss of exemption and being a descendant of a former ruling chief) are met. This interpretation aligns with the principle that statutes intended for public benefit or justice should be construed as mandatory.- Rules and Enquiries: The rules framed under Section 8 support this interpretation. They require detailed enquiries into the applicant's circumstances, emphasizing the special status of descendants of former ruling chiefs. The rules distinguish between general applicants and those belonging to special categories, reinforcing the mandatory nature of Section 5(3) for the latter group.Issue 2: Lawfulness of Rejection Without ReasonsThe appellants' petition was rejected by the State Government without providing any reasons, which they claimed was an improper exercise of power.- Quasi-Judicial Duty: The Supreme Court held that the State Government's decision-making process under the Act must be quasi-judicial, requiring reasons to be provided. The absence of reasons in the rejection order violated this requirement. The appellants were entitled to know why their claim was rejected, especially since the Act bars civil suits, leaving them with no other remedy.- Judicial Precedent: The Court cited the case of Messrs Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala, emphasizing that even decisions based on confidential material must provide reasons when performing quasi-judicial functions.Issue 3: High Court's Interpretation of Section 5(3)The High Court dismissed the appellants' petition based on its interpretation that Section 5(3) conferred absolute discretion on the State Government.- Supreme Court's Finding: The Supreme Court found this interpretation incorrect. It clarified that while Section 5(2) confers discretion on the State Government to pass orders as it deems fit, Section 5(3) imposes an obligation when specific conditions are met. The High Court's failure to recognize this distinction led to an erroneous dismissal of the petition.ConclusionThe Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and the State Government's rejection order. It directed the State Government to reconsider the appellants' application in light of the correct interpretation of Section 5(3) and to provide reasons for its decision. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appellants in both the Supreme Court and the High Court. The appeal was allowed.