Constitutional compensation and public office misfeasance limits bar punitive damages and blanket criminal investigation directions

Article 32 relief was held to be confined to constitutional redress and ordinary principles of liability, so exemplary damages could not be imposed in favour of the State against its own Minister for arbitrary allotment decisions; the punitive monetary direction was recalled. The ingredients of misfeasance in public office were also not established, because arbitrary or undesirable allotments alone did not show a deliberate abuse directed to injure an identifiable claimant. Directions to register and investigate criminal breach of trust or any other offence were unsustainable, as entrustment and a prima facie basis for a specific offence were absent and a roving inquiry was impermissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India could sustain an award of exemplary damages in favour of the State against a Minister for arbitrary exercise of discretionary allotment power; (ii) whether the ingredients of the tort of misfeasance in public office were made out on the facts; and (iii) whether a direction could be issued to the CBI to register and investigate criminal breach of trust or any other offence.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India could sustain an award of exemplary damages in favour of the State against a Minister for arbitrary exercise of discretionary allotment power.

Analysis: Relief under Article 32 is available to enforce fundamental rights and, in appropriate cases, to grant compensation against the State or its instrumentalities for violation of public duties or fundamental rights. However, the power is remedial and cannot be used to direct the State to recover exemplary damages from itself in circumstances where the claimant is not the victim of a personal legal wrong and where the award is unsupported by the ordinary principles governing damages. The Court held that the petitioner, being part of the Union Government, could not be made personally liable to pay punitive compensation to the Government Exchequer in the manner directed.

Conclusion: The award of exemplary damages was not sustainable and had to be recalled.

Issue (ii): Whether the ingredients of the tort of misfeasance in public office were made out on the facts.

Analysis: Misfeasance in public office requires a deliberate abuse of power, coupled with malice, knowledge of unlawfulness, or reckless indifference, and it is ordinarily founded on injury to an identifiable claimant. The allotments were found to be arbitrary and undesirable, but the Court held that the essential elements of the tort were not fully established because there was no identifiable plaintiff who suffered a compensable loss caused by a deliberate abuse directed to injure that claimant. The broader notion of public accountability could not be stretched into a tort claim on the basis of a press report and a public interest petition alone.

Conclusion: The tort of misfeasance in public office was not made out.

Issue (iii): Whether a direction could be issued to the CBI to register and investigate criminal breach of trust or any other offence.

Analysis: Criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code requires entrustment of property or dominion over property and dishonest misappropriation or use in violation of law or contract. The ministerial discretion over allotment of petrol outlets was not property entrusted in the statutory sense, and the ingredients of criminal breach of trust were absent. A blanket direction to investigate whether any other offence had been committed was also impermissible, as investigative direction must rest on a prima facie disclosure of a specific offence and cannot be issued as a roving inquiry into whether an offence exists at all.

Conclusion: The directions to register and investigate criminal breach of trust and any other offence were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The review succeeded on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record, and the punitive monetary direction as well as the investigative directions were set aside, with consequential refund of any amount paid pursuant to the recalled order.

Ratio Decidendi: In public law proceedings under Article 32, compensation may be awarded only within the limits of constitutional redress and established principles of liability; exemplary damages cannot be imposed in favour of the State against its own Minister absent the essential ingredients of a recognised tort, and criminal investigation cannot be ordered without a prima facie basis for a e offence.

---