Case: G B Mahajan  Vs. The Jalgaon Municipal Council

frequently cited passage (though most commonly cited only by its nickname) in administrative law. It explains how reasonableness, in its classic formulation, covers a multitude of sins. These various errors commonly result from paying too much attention to the mere words of the Act and too little to its general scheme and purpose, and from the fallacy that unrestricted language naturally confers unfettered discretion. Unreasonableness has thus become a generalised rubric covering not only sheer absurdity or caprice, but merging into illegitimate motives and purposes, a wide category of errors commonly described as irrelevant considerations, and mistakes and misunderstandings which can be classed as self-misdirection, or addressing oneself to the wrong question... ... " The point to note is that a thing is not unreasonable in the legal sense merely because the Court thinks it is unwise. Some observations of Lord Scarman in Nottinghamshire County Council v. Secretary of State for Environment, (1986 AC 240 at 247) might usefully be recalled: "... But I cannot accept that it is constitutionally appropriate, save in very exceptional circumstances, for the Courts to intervene on the ground of "unreasonableness" to quash guidance framed by the Secretary of State and by necessary implication approved by the House of Commons, the guidance being concerned with the limits of public expenditure by local authorities and the incidence of the tax burden as between taxpayers and ratepayers. Unless and until a statute provides otherwise, or it is established that the Secretary of State has abused his power, these are matters of political judgment for him and for the House of Commons. they are not for the judges or your Lordships House in its judicial capacity." "For myself, I refuse in this case to examine the detail of the guidance or its consequences. My reasons. are these. Such an examination by a Court would be justified only if a prima facie case were to be shown for holding that the Secretary of State had acted in bad faith, or for an improper motive, or that the consequences of his guidance were so absurd that he must have taken leave of his senses... ...." When Lord Denning MR stated in the Court of Appeal that "Not only must (the probationer-Counseller) be given a fair hearing, but the decision itself must be fair and reasonable" (emphasis supplied), the House of Lords thought that the statement of the learned Master of the Rolls, if allowed to pass into law, would wrongly transform the remedy of judicial review, as the statement would imply that the Court can itself sit, as in appeal, in judgment of the reasonableness of the decision instead of on the correctness of the "decision making process". "The purpose of judicial review", it was stated : "... . is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court." ( 20. ) While it is true that principles of judicial review apply to the exercise by a government body of its contractual powers, the inherent limitations on the scope of the inquiry are themselves a part of those principles. For instance, in a matter even as between the parties, there must be shown a public law element to the contractual decision before judicial review is invoked. In the present case the material placed before the Court falls far short of what the law requires to justify interference. ( 21. ) In regard to the allegation that the Project Scheme was tailored to suit respondent 6 alone or that the project as put to tender did not admit of tenders on fixed comparable parameters, we find no merit. Sri K. K. Singhvi submitted that the tender papers were prepared by reputed architects and the precise points on which comparative quotations were invited were specifically incorporated in the tender-papers. The point again is that no other tenderer expressed any grievance. The tenders were such that the tenderer could identify the terms which form the basis of comparative evaluation. The charge of arbitrariness cannot be upheld. Tests to be applied in a given case may be influenced by the extent to which a decision is supported by a democratic unanimity which evidences the decision - granted, of course, the power.( 22. ) Sri R. K. Jain stated that the scheme enables respondent 6 to resort to certain well-known financial malpractices for tax-evasion now known to be rampant when properties change hands. Sri Jain said that the Court ought to take judicial notice of so rampant and pervasive an evil and interdict anything that tends to promote such unhealthy economic trends. While it is true that large scale tax-evasion and evils of unaccounted money bedevils the nations economic discipline and that with the increasing erosion of morality in public life and the serious personal degradations for unjust gains one sees all-round, the situation is, indeed, serious. But we fail to see what the Court can do in a case like this. The present argument proceeds on two assumptions. The first is that respondent No. 6 has, in fact, indulged in such practices in the matter of disposal of occupancy-rights. This is a mere allegation which is emphatically repudiated by respondent No. 6. The second is that the accommodation in this commercial complex is such good competitive selling proposition that there is great demand and limited supply enabling respondent 6 to exploit the situation. This again is a matter of mere allegation. To condemn the municipal authoritys decision, otherwise valid, on the ground alone that the developer is likely to resort to transactions of unaccounted money would, as a judicial remedy, be plainly unthinkable. Contention (d) requires to be and is also held against appellants.( 23. ) On a consideration of the matter, we think that the conclusion reached by the High Court does not call for interference.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]( 12. ) Re: Contention (a) The mode of financing of the project is stated to be unconventional one and does not accord with any recognised or accepted norms of functioning and financial discipline of Governmental bodies. It is urged that while the Municipal Council could have engaged a contractor to execute the work against payment in accordance with well accepted procedures for Government contracts or could have executed the works itself departmentally. It is said that the method now chosen for the development involves a policy impermissible for a Government body. This contention of the appellants, as a legal contention is not somewhat vague and does not admit oflegal contours. As we apprehend the contention, it pertains to the legality or propriety of aHowever, reliance was placed on certain observations of this Court in Ramana Dayanand Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979 (3) SCR 1014 : (AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) and Kasturilal Laxmi Reddy v. State of J and K (1980 (3) SCR 1338 ): (AIR 1980 SC 1992 ). In those cases relied this Court pointed out that with the growth of a welfare state and with the Government assuming a pluralist role as provider of social welfare services and with the corresponding increase in the magnitude of the governmental functions and the consequent evolution of new forms of wealth and new forms of property, the scope for conferment of largesse by Government had increased and the discretion of Government in the disposal of such properties, rights or privileges should not be unlimited and15. ) We hold that Contention (a) does not justify quashing of the impugned Resolution of the Municipal Council.(17. ) On a consideration of the matter we find no substance in contentions (b) and (c) either(21. ) In regard to the allegation that the Project Scheme was tailored to suit respondent 6 alone or that the project as put to tender did not admit of tenders on fixed comparable parameters, we find no merit. Sri K. K. Singhvi submitted that the tender papers were prepared by reputed architects and the precise points on which comparative quotations were invited were specifically incorporated in theThe point again is that no other tenderer expressed any grievance. The tenders were such that the tenderer could identify the terms which form the basis of comparative evaluation. The charge of arbitrariness cannot be upheld. Tests to be applied in a given case may be influenced by the extent to which a decision is supported by a democratic unanimity which evidences the decisiongranted, of course, the power.( 22. ) Sri R. K. Jain stated that the scheme enables respondent 6 to resort to certainfinancial malpractices fornow known to be rampant when properties change hands. Sri Jain said that the Court ought to take judicial notice of so rampant and pervasive an evil and interdict anything that tends to promote such unhealthy economic trends. While it is true that large scaleand evils of unaccounted money bedevils the nations economic discipline and that with the increasing erosion of morality in public life and the serious personal degradations for unjust gains one seesthe situation is, indeed, serious. But we fail to see what the Court can do in a case like this. The present argument proceeds on two assumptions. The first is that respondent No. 6 has, in fact, indulged in such practices in the matter of disposal ofThis is a mere allegation which is emphatically repudiated by respondent No. 6. The second is that the accommodation in this commercial complex is such good competitive selling proposition that there is great demand and limited supply enabling respondent 6 to exploit the situation. This again is a matter of mere allegation. To condemn the municipal authoritys decision, otherwise valid, on the ground alone that the developer is likely to resort to transactions of unaccounted money would, as a judicial remedy, be plainly unthinkable. Contention (d) requires to be and is also held against appellants.( 23. ) On a consideration of the matter, we think that the conclusion reached by the High Court does not call for interference.