Miss Lucy
← All judgments

State Of Punjab vs M.L. Puri

Supreme Court14 February 1975A. Alagiriswami · M.H. Beg

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a matter has been decided by a lower court solely on one ground without full consideration of all relevant issues, and the law governing those issues has since been clarified by a higher court decision, the case should be remitted to the lower court to reconsider all issues afresh in light of the clarified legal position rather than being decided on the incomplete record before the appellate court. Where the Rules of Business made under Article 166 of the Constitution empower a Government officer to deal with a matter, the Governor is not required to personally examine the matter, and the validity of official action taken pursuant to such delegation does not depend on the Governor's personal consideration. Where a Government order purporting to give sanction for prosecution is challenged, and the record does not contain evidence of the foundational decision to prosecute, the validity of the sanction must be determined by inquiry into whether the competent authority (here, the Chief Minister) had actually considered and approved the prosecution, and whether the officer who signed the formal order (here, the Chief Secretary) had authority to do so, rather than by dismissing the sanction as invalid based solely on the absence of the Governor's personal involvement.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

JUDGMENT
A. Alagiriswami, J.

1. The appeal before it was disposed of by the Punjab and Haryana High Court solelv on the ground that the sanction to prosecute the respondent was not given by the Governor. Since then this Court has decided in Shamsher Singh's case that the Governor need not look into any matter personally if the Rules of Business made under Article 166 empower any officer of the Government to deal with the matter. All the same Mr. Sanghi appearing on behalf of the respondent urges that the question whether .there was a valid sanction to prosecute the respondent should be gone into by this Court. He urges that during the period when the sanction was given the Haryana State was under President's rule and therefore Article 166 was not in force and the Governor himself would have had to see the case and sanction it. On the other hand it is stated on behalf of the appellants that this case had been seen by the Chief Minister earlier and he had sanctioned the prosecution and all that remained was a formal order embodying that decision and it was that order which had been signed by the Chief Secretary during the period when Haryana was under President's rule. There are. however, no materials on record to show whether the Chief Minister had seen it because on the earlier occasion when the question of the validity of the sanction was at issue.the matter was decided purely on the basis that the Governor had not seen it. In view of the decision in Shamsher Singh's case (supra), validity of the sanction will have to be decided both on the basis whether the Chief Minister had seen the case as also on the basis whether the Chief Secretary could be said to have made the sanction order. We say nothing as to whether the prosecution would be entitled to let in any fresh evidence as to whether the Chief Minister had sanctioned the prosecution originally. We therefore consider it proper that the High Court should consider all these matters and also deal with the case on merits and dispose of it afresh. There are three appeals before this Court: one by the Government of Punjab and the other by the Government of Haryana against the Judgment of the High Court holding that there was no valid sanction. There is also an appeal by the Haryana Government against the order of the High Court holding that the Haryana Government was not entitled to a certificate. In the view we are taking we do not think it necessary to decide that appeal. That appeal will therefore be dismissed.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free