COMMON CAUSE A REGD. SOCIETY
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/11/1996
KULDIP SINGH, FAIZAN UDDIN
O R D E R
The question before this Court in Common Cause Vs. Union of India and Ors. Writ Petition (C) No. 26/95 was whether the allotments of retail outlets for petroleum products (Petrol Pumps) were illegal and as such liable to the quashed. This Court by the judgment dated September 25, 1996 came to the conclusion that the allotments made by Capt. Satish Sharma were arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, wholly illegal and as such were liable to be quashed. This Court reached the said findings on the following reasoning :
“All the 15 allotments – discussed
above – have been made by the
Minister in a stereotyped manner.
The Petroleum Ministry. There is
no receipt – entry on any of the
applications. The applicants seem
to have approached dealt with in
any of the branches of the
Ministry. There is nothing on the
record to indicate that the
Minister kept any criteria in view
while making the allotments. How
the applicants came to know about
the availability of the petrol
pumps is not known. No
advertisement was made to invite
the applications. There is nothing
on the record to show that any
other method of the inviting
applications was adopted. There is
no indication in the allotment-
orders or any where in the record
to show that the Minister kept any
guidelines in view while making
these allotments. The allotments
have been made in a cloistered
manner. The petrol pumps – public
property – have been doled out in a
wholly arbitrary manner.” …..
“All these allotments are wholly
arbitrary nepotistic and are
motivated by extraneous
“We have no hesitation in holding
that Capt. Satish Sharma in his
capacity as a Minister for
Petroleum and Natural Gas
deliberately acted in a wholly
arbitrary and unjust manner. We
have no doubt in our mind that
Capt. Satish Sharma knew that the
allottees were relations of his
personal staff, sons of Ministers,
Selection Boards and the members of
the Oil Selection Boards
themselves. The allotments made by
him were wholly mala fide and as
such cannot be sustained.
We are further of the view that
Capt. Satish Sharma acted in a
wholly biased manner inasmuch as he
unfairly regarded with favour the
cases of 15 allottee before him.
The relevant circumstances
available from record and discussed
by us leave no manner of doubt in
our mind that Capt. Satish Sharma
deliberately acted in a biased
manner to favour these allottees
and as such the allotment orders
are wholly vitiated and are liable
to be set aside.”
“Mr. Satish Sharma has acted in
utter violation of the law laid-
down by this Court and has also
infarcted Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. As already
stated in a minister in the
Central Government is in a position
of a trustee in respect of the
public property under his agencies
are a kind of wealth which the
Government must distribute in a
bona fide manner and in conformity
with law. Capt. Satish Sharma has
betrayed the trust reposed in him
by the people under the
One of the directions issued by
this Court was an under :
“5. Capt. Satish Sharma shall show-
cause within two weeks why a
direction be not issued to the
appropriate police authority to
register a case and initiate
prosecution against him for
criminal breach of trust or any
other offence under law. He shall
further show-cause within the said
period why he should not, in
addition, be made liable to pay
damages for his mala fide action in
allotting petrol pumps to the above
mentioned fifteen persons.”
Pursuant to the above quoted direction, a show cause notice was issued to Capt. Satish Sharma. He has filed affidavit in reply to the show cause notice. We have heard Mr. Salve, learned counsel appearing for Capt. Satish Sharma. There are two parts of the directions quoted above. This Court has called upon Capt. Satish Sharma to show cause why a direction be not issued to the appropriate police authority to register a case and initiate prosecution against him for criminal breach of trust or any other offence under law.
The findings of this Court, quoted above, and the conclusion reached in the Common Cause case, leave no manner of doubt that an investigation by an independent authority is called for in this case. We, therefore, direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register a case against Capt. Satish Sharma in respect of the allegation dealt with and the findings reached by this Court in the Common Cause case. The CBI shall hold investigation and proceed in accordance with law. There shall be no limit on the power, scope and sphere of investigation by the CBI. We, however, make it clear that the CBI shall not be influenced by any observations made by this Court or the findings reached in Common Cause case, for reaching the conclusion as to whether any prima facie case for prosecution/trial is made out against Capt. Sharma. It shall have to be decided on the basis of the material collected and made available with the CBI as a result of the investigation. We direct the CBI to complete the investigation within three months of the receipt of this order. The CBI shall file interim report to indicate the compliance of this order. This shall be to indicate the compliance of this order. This shall be done by January 20, 1997 and this matter shall be listed on January 22, 1997 before a Bench of which Mr. Justice Faizan Uddin is a member.
Mr. Harish Salve has addressed elaborate arguments on the question of damages. We place on record our appreciation for Mr. Harish Salve for assisting this Court in a very fair and independent manner.
According to Mr. Salve this is not a case where compensatory or exemplary damages should be imposed. According to him nominal damages would meet the ends of justice.
This Court has authoritatively laid down in Nilabati Behera (Smt.) Alias Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa and Ors. 1993 (2) SCC 746 that damages can be awarded by this Court in proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Salve has taken us through the Privy Council judgment in Rookes Vs. Barnard and Ors. 1964 Appeal Cases 1129. Lord Devlin in his opinion has held that exemplary damages can be awarded for “oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional action by the servants of the Government”. Mr. Salve has also taken us through the judgment of the Court of Appeal in A.B. and Ors. Vs. South West Water Services Ltd. 1993 Queen’s Bench 507. Broome’s case elaborately discussed and relied upon in this judgment. It would be useful to quote the relevant part of the opinion by Stuart-Smith L.J.
“This first category is “oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional action by the servants of the government.” It is common ground that this category of persons is not limited to the servants of central government, but includes servants of local government and the police. In Broome v. Cassell & Co. Ltd. (1972) A.C. 1027, 1077- 1078, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone L.C. said : “… I would be surprised if it included only servants of the Government if the strict sense of the word. It would, in my view, obviously apply to the police … and almost as certainly to local and other officials exercising improperly rights of search or arrest without warrant, and it may be that in the future it will be held to include other abuses of power without warrant by persons purporting to exercise legal authority.”
Lord Reid said, at pp. 1087-88 :
“With regard to the first I think that the context shows that the category was never intended to be limited to Crown servants. the contrast is between “the Government” and private individuals. Local government is as much government as national government, and the police and many other persons are exercising governmental functions. It was unnecessary in Rookes v. Barnard to define the exact limits of the category. I should certainly read it as extending to all those who by common law or statute are exercising functions of a governmental character.” Lord Wilberforce said at p.1120 :
“There is not perhaps much difficulty about category 1 : it is well based on the cases and on a principle stated in 1703 – ‘if public officers will infringe men’s rights, they ought to pay greater damages than other men to deter and hinder others from the like offences:’ Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Id. Raym. 938, 956, per Holt C.J. Excessive and insolent use of power is certainly something against which citizens require as much which I understand your Lordships to endorse would correspond with Holt C.J.’s ‘public officers’ and would partly correspond with modern needs.” Lord Diplock said of the first category, at p.1130 : “It would embrace all persons purporting to exercise powers of government, central or local, conferred upon them by statute or at common law by virtue of the official status or employment which they held.”
In the said case Thomas Bingham M.R. further elaborated the concept in the following words : “In the first category there had
been what he variously described as
an “arbitrary and outrageous use of
executive power:’ (see p. 1223) and
” oppressive, arbitrary or
unconstitutional action by the
servants of the government:” see p.
1226. Minute textual analysis of
these expressions is inappropriate.
This was a judgment, not a statute.
But there can be no doubt What
Lord Devlin was speaking about. It
was gross misuse of power,involving
tortious conduct, by agents of
government. According to the
traditional classification of the
law of tort, such misuse of power
could give rise to any one of a
number of causes of action, which
Lord Devlin was not at pains to
The Court of Appeal also relied upon the judgment of the House of Lords in Broome Vs. Cassell & Co. Ltd. 1972 Appeal Cases 1027.
We are of view that the legal position that exemplary damages can be awarded in a case where the action of a public servant is oppressive, arbitrary or unconstitutional is unexceptionable. The question for consideration, however, is whether the action of Capt. Satish Sharma makes him liable to pay exemplary damages. In view of the findings of this Court in Common Cause Case – quoted above – the answer has to be in the affirmative. Satish Sharma’s actions were wholly arbitrary, mala fide and unconstitutional. This Court has given clear findings to this effect in the Common Cause case. We, therefore, hold that Capt. Satish Sharma is liable to pay exemplary damages.
We have heard Mr. HN Salve on the question of quantum. Mr. Salve has vehemently contended that Capt. Sharma was a part of the system which was operating before his joining as a Minister. According to him the types of wrongs were being committed even earlier on the assumption subjective satisfaction. He has further contended that since the concept of absolute liability of public servants for misfeasance has been of recent origin in this country even while awarding exemplary damages leniency should be shown. There is some plausibility in the contentions raised by Mr. Salve. After examining all the facts and circumstances of this case and giving thoughtful consideration to this aspect, we direct Capt. Satish Sharma to pay a sum of Rs. 50 lac as exemplary damages to the Government Exchequer. Since the property with which Capt. Sharma was dealing was public property, the Government which is “by the people” has to be compensated. We further direct Capt. Sharma to deposit the amount with the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India within nine months from today. The amount if not paid, shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue.