Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 – Section 6A – ‘Authority’ is empowered to delegate the power to collect taxes or fees levied by it. However, under no circumstances does it authorize the delegation of the power to levy taxes or fees.[SC held that NOIDA overstepped its authority by delegating the power to levy fees to NTBCL through the Concession Agreement and Regulations, exceeding the scope of its powers] (para 46)
Administrative Law -An authority vested with the power to frame subordinate legislation must act within the bounds of that power and refrain from exceeding its limits- The power to delegate must be expressly discernible in the Principal Act itself and in the absence of such provisions, no circular method can be countenanced to extract such power. (Para 47)
Constitution of India – Article 32,226 – While public interest litigation serves as an effective tool for addressing the grievances of the public, it must be carefully scrutinised to prevent misuse or abuse by those with ulterior motives. Courts must look beyond the surface to assess whether the litigation has been genuinely initiated in the interest of the public or as a result of mischief. The essence of PIL lies in its aim to remedy genuine public wrongs or injuries rather than being driven by personal vendetta or malice.(Para 12)
Constitution of India – Article 32,226 -Articles 32 or 226 are not guided by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, but instead, by the Doctrine of Delay and Laches – The doctrine of delay and laches cannot be applied stricto senso to writ petitions invoking public interest jurisdiction, unless the court is satisfied that the party has not approached it with clean hands – While delay is a material factor, there is no fixed period of limitation for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 and that each case should be considered on its own facts and circumstances, thus allowing for a more liberal approach when applying this doctrine – The doctrine is not a rigid rule but is rather a practice that is founded on the exercise of sound judicial discretion. (Para 17) An established exception to the defence of delay is the presence of a continuous injury stemming from an ongoing wrong. The plea of delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action. (Para 20)
Constitution of India – Article 32,226 – There is no absolute bar on the maintainability of writ petitions, even in matters concerning contracts or monetary claims. where State action is challenged as arbitrary or capricious, courts are justified in intervening through judicial review to determine whether the State has adhered to the principles embodied in Article 14- every State action must prioritise public interest. If a governmental action disproportionately favours a private entity at the expense of public welfare, it is liable to be struck down as invalid. (Para 26-28) Government procedures or policies pioneered in public interest must genuinely serve the public and not merely enrich private entities. When public interest is overshadowed, it does raise concerns as to whether the Government has acted in a manner that appears capricious or arbitrary. It then becomes imperative for the Court to scrutinise whether such actions vitiate the Constitutional mandate of equality. Such procedures, must therefore satisfy the litmus test of due application of mind, fairness, transparency and most pertinently, being bona fide. (Para 35)
Contract Law – Contracts loaded with terms which are so unfair and unreasonable, that they truly baffle this Court, are undoubtedly opposed to public policy and must be adjudged void – Contracts loaded with terms which are so unfair and unreasonable, that they truly baffle this Court, are undoubtedly opposed to public policy and must be adjudged void. The Court is always cautious when determining if a particular contract or action is opposed to public policy, but in doing so, it cannot shirk from its duty and approve helplessly the interpretation of a Statute or a document or of an action which is certain to subvert the societal goals and endanger the public good – To do so, the Court may invoke the Doctrine of Severability and sever the incurable parts of the contract from the whole. The Court can do so only when the rest of the contract can breathe and survive without the aid of its void covenants. The Court must ask itself whether the parties would have agreed to the valid terms of the agreement if they knew that the invalid terms would be removed. (Para 78)
Summary -Appeal by the Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd. (NTBCL) challenging a High Court ruling that invalidated clauses in a concession agreement allowing NTBCL to collect tolls on the Delhi-Noida Direct Flyway. The High Court found the agreement’s toll provisions and the process for selecting NTBCL to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision.