The Court underlined that the authorities of the District Administration have been legally vested certain authority and power which are to be exercised in good faith and with bona fide intentions.
“Any deviation from good faith in discharge of the duties and powers by such State authorities cannot, in our constitutional set up, be approved of. The authority and power vested by a democratic system in the hands of the officers and employees of the executive has to be always exercised by them being duty-conscious; rather than such employees/officers being powercharged,” the Court added.
Consequently, the Court observed that the District Administration has been deficient and wanting so far as following the legal procedure is concerned.
It also questioned how, when the land on which the house was built was used by the Chairman of the association for 7 years before the exchange deed suddenly being cancelled, could have been said to be damage to public property, as mentioned in the FIR.
“As to how use of such exchanged land from 16.05.2015 till 16.11.2022 can be said to have caused damage to public property is again an issue which raises question mark on the District Administration,” the Court recorded.
The Court further observed that restraint and adherence to rule of law is the hallmark of efficient and judicious administration and any deviation from such attributes by the District Administration is bound to raise concerns.
“Thus this Court expects that any District Administration or the officers and employees associated with it will, in all circumstances, act in adherence to law so as to instill a sense of justice amongst one and all,” it added.
Source: Barandbench
