https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189141 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. en-us Tue, 03 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Dec 2016 10:35:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189141 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 03 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189141