It is trite to say that when a statute requires anything to be done by a statutory authority or a government officer within a prescribed period and the citizen has no control over the statutory authority or the government officer requiring him to do the thing within the specified time, the provision of a statute or rule requiring the thing to be done within the specified time must be held to be directory. This is because the citizen has no control over the statutory authority or the government officer and he cannot suffer from the negligence of the statutory authority or the government officer in failure to perform the duty within the specified time.
This principle was enunciated by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Dattatraya Moreshwar v. The State of Bombay 1952 AIR 181, 1952 SCR 612, wherein Das J. observed:
In my opinion, this contention of the learned Attorney-General must prevail. It is well settled that generally speaking the provisions of a statute creating public duties are directory and those conferring private rights are imperative. When the provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those entrusted with the duty and at the same time would not promote the practice of the Courts to hold such provisions to be directory only, the neglect of them not affecting the validity of the acts done.
Dadasaheb Arjun Gulve vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
Citation: 2008 (2) BomCR 712
20 December, 2007
Bombay High CourtAuthor: D Karnik J.
Bench: S Mhase, D Karnik J. J.
No comments:
Post a Comment