TMI Blog1964 (10) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing contained in the grant, contract, law, rule or instrument. The appellants held estates in the two districts on favourable terms as Jahgirdars Maufidars and Ubaridars, and enjoyed an exemption from payment of land revenue amounting in the aggregate to ₹ 27,828-5-0 yearly. On the passing of the Act the exemption was lost and they claimed to be entitled to grant of money or pension under the provisions of the Act about to be set out. They applied to the Deputy Commissioner, who forwarded their application to the State Government. The State Government by its order No. 993 /XVI- 4, dated April 26, 1955 rejected their petition. No reasons are contained in that order. The appellants thereupon filed a petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the State Government. In that petition they contended that the, rejection of their petition by the State Government without giving any reasons amounted to no decision at all and was an improper and illegal exercise of the power vested in the State Government by s. 5 of the Act. The State Government resisted the petition by contending that the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the jurisdiction of civil courts. Section 8 enables the Provincial Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Section 7 grants power to the: State Government to grant exemptions from payment of land revenue under the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 and the Berar Land Revenue Code in whole or in part, as it may deem fit. The short question in this appeal is whether the provisions of s. 5(3) make it obligatory upon the State Government to make a suitable grant of money or pension in case it is proved that the applicant has lost the exemption under the Act and is a descendant from a former ruling chief? The Full Bench of the High Court was of the view that there was no obligation on the State Government to make such a grant inasmuch as S. 5 (3) was discretionary. The appellants contend that the view of the High Court of S. 5 (3) is erroneous and the section is mandatory notwithstanding the use of language which appears to confer a discretion, provided the other conditions of the sub-section are fulfilled. Before we deal with this question we may also refer to the rules which have been framed under S. 8 of the Act. These rules, were made for deal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f making a money grant under S. 5(3). It is contended on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh that the powers exercisable under the Act are in the discretion of the Government and there can be no remedy by way of a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is pointed out in support of the submission that sub-s. (2) of S. 5 confers on the Government complete discretion because it says that the Provincial (State) Government . . .. .... ... may pass such orders as it deems fit in respect of every application forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner, and that sub-s. (3) is also worded in language which is directory where it says The Provincial (State) Government may make a grant of money or pension etc. This view ,appears to have been accepted in the High Court. In our opinion, this contention cannot be supported if the scheme of the fifth section is closely examined. No doubt, the Deputy Commissioner is required to make enquiries and to forward all applications to Government and Government has been given the power to pass such orders as it deems fit but the operation of sub-s. (2) and the discretion in it relates to applications in general while in respect of some of the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes ( 11th edn. p. 23 1 Statutes which authorise persons to do acts for the benefit of others, or, as it is sometimes said. for the public good or the advancement of justice, have often given rise to controversy when conferring the authority in terms simply enabling and not mandatory. In enacting that they may , or shall, if they think fit, or, shall have power, or that it shall be lawful for them to do such acts a statute appears to use the language of mere permission, but it has been so often decided as to have become an axiom that in such cases such expressions may have-to say the least compulsory force, and so would seem to be modified by judicial exposition. This is an instance where, on the existence of the condition precedent, the grant of money or pension becomes obligatory on the Government notwithstanding that in S. 5(2) the Government has been given the power to pass such orders as it deems fit and in sub-s. (3) the word may is used. The word may is often read as shall or must when there is something in the nature of the thing to be done which makes it the duty of the person on whom the power is conferred to exer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
