UNION OF INDIA UOI Vs. SIGMA ELECTRONICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The remedy available under Article 226 of the Constitution by way of issuance of a high prerogative writ or writs is extraordinary in nature and is wholly discretionary though, however, there cannot possibly be any manner of doubt that exercise of power by the High Court is of widest possible amplitude but that by itself, however, does not clothe the Writ Court to intervene or interfere without there being any infringement of a right - there must be some breach of a right if not the legal right only and the law is well-settled on this score and as such I do not wish to dilate much in regard thereto.

(2.) Before adverting to the rival contentions as raised in the matter certain basic principles of law governing the jurisdiction of the Writ Court ought to be noted at this juncture. The most accepted methodology of all governmental actions is fair play and fair treatment and in the event of there being any departure therefrom, the jurisdiction of the Writ Court can be invoked and it would then be a plain exercise of judicial power to grant relief to a person who is seeking justice against an unfair dealing or an unfair treatment or against an administrative ipse dixit.

(3.) The Supreme Court of New South Wales in the case of Asmond v. Public Service Board of New South Wales and Anr. reported in 1985 LR (Commonwealth) 1041 after noticing the American and English Law observed that fairness is articulated in terms of inherent necessities of the proper operation of judicial process. The general duty of fairness as regards administrative action has also been accepted as a guiding principle by Meggary, J. in the case of Bates v. Lord Hailsham [1972 (1) All E.R. 1201].