Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether rule 27 of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 confers a mandatory right to a lease for regularisation of old grants, and whether a writ of mandamus could be issued directing grant of such lease in every case falling under the rule.
Analysis: Rule 27 uses the expression "may" and makes the grant of a lease subject to the approval of the Central Government or the authority appointed by it. The language of the rule therefore indicates a power to grant a lease and not an obligation to do so in every case. The requirement of approval also implies that the proposed action may be approved or disapproved, which is inconsistent with a compulsory duty to grant the lease in all cases. The Court distinguished situations where permissive language may be construed as mandatory and held that this rule did not fall within that category. The authorities were thus entitled to exercise discretion and refuse relief in suitable cases for sufficient reasons.
Conclusion: Rule 27 is discretionary and does not confer an enforceable right to a lease in every case. No mandamus could issue compelling grant of the lease as a matter of course.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a provision confers power in permissive terms and subjects its exercise to another authority's approval, the provision is ordinarily discretionary and not mandatory unless the statutory context clearly compels a contrary construction.