Unexplained Delay By Public Authority In Deciding Citizen's Application Attracts 'Doctrine Of Malice In Law': Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that where a public authority sits over a citizen's application for an indefinite period without any reasonable or plausible justification, the inaction by itself attracts the doctrine of malice in law and shows arbitrariness. It held that an unjustified delay in permitting a citizen to carry on a lawful trade or business must answer to the “golden triangle”, i.e. Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,“The Non-issue of 'No Objection Certificate' without any plausible cause, as evident from the personal affidavit submitted by the District Magistrate before this Court, who could not defend her inaction for a period of two years attracts the doctrine of malice in law and, by itself, indicates the mala fide and arbitrariness. Mala fide and arbitrariness are distinct manifestations arising from the same vice, with the latter being broader in scope and encompassing the former.”The petitioner was issued a Letter of Intent dated 29th March 2024 by Reliance BP Mobility Limited for a retail petrol outlet at Khasra No.180 in Village Udaharanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Fatehpur, and obtained no objection certificates from the Revenue, Electricity, Stamp and Fire Departments, the Pollution Control Board and the National Highways Authority of India. By a letter dated 1st July 2024, the oil company sought a further certificate from the District Magistrate, Fatehpur. None was issued, either under the Government Order dated 30th January 2023 then in force or under a revised policy dated 18th December 2025 which simplified the procedure and relaxed the norms. The petitioner approached the High Court for a mandamus.The Court, dissatisfied with the instructions furnished, called upon the District Magistrate to show cause and directed her to explain the matter in person. She then filed a personal affidavit annexing the certificate, which carried two conditions: sanction of a building plan for the entire 4,200 square metres proposed to be used, and deposit of the process fee for sanction of the map.The petitioner argued that his right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) had been infringed by the apathy of the District Magistrate's office, which had made a clerk the scapegoat, and that inaction for over two years without explanation was arbitrary and hit by Article 14. The State submitted that nothing survived since the certificate had been issued. It was submitted that the delay was caused by a belated police report, and that the clerk had been punished with a censure entry.The Court held that malice in fact requires proof of personal ill-will or improper motive, whereas malice in law may be inferred where a public authority acts in deliberate defiance of the law or on extraneous or misconceived grounds. “Malice in law in the instant case is writ large as the District Magistrate concerned had absolutely no explanation for the delay in issue of a 'No Objection Certificate' except slashing one petty clerk by her mighty sword.”Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court observed that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies, and that the failure to decide promptly in disregard of the government orders made the petitioner a victim of red tapism. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, it observed that Articles 14, 19 and 21 are interrelated and must be read harmoniously, a doctrine known as the golden triangle.“The right to establish and operate a retail fuel outlet, subject to fulfillment of the statutory and regulatory requirements, constitutes an integral facet of the right to carry on trade and business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Where the establishment of such an enterprise is unjustifiably impeded by arbitrary and unexplained administrative inaction, the resultant deprivation also bears upon the individual's right to livelihood and to live with dignity, which forms an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.”Holding that the District Magistrate's office and successive incumbents had been sitting over the matter for more than two years in violation of both government orders, the Court took exception to the censure of the clerk.“We notice that a clerk has been punished with a censure entry, when the higher officers were reminded of their duties. We would say that the action now taken to issue the 'No Objection Certificate' in haste could have been taken at leisure long back.”The Court declined to examine the conditions attached to the certificate, which the petitioner sought to impeach, in the absence of any challenge to them. Since the certificate had been issued, it held that nothing survived for adjudication on merits and disposed of the petition, directing the oil company to proceed expeditiously on the Letter of Intent. The Court recorded its expectation that the District...

Unexplained Delay By Public Authority In Deciding Citizen's Application Attracts 'Doctrine Of Malice In Law': Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Unexplained Delay By Public Authority In Deciding Citizen's Application Attracts 'Doctrine Of Malice In Law': Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers