Interpreting the scope and meaning of “reasonable cause” provided in Section 11(4)(v) of the Act a Division Bench of this Court in Paulina Joseph v. Idukki District Wholesale Co-operative Consumer Stores Ltd., 2006 (1) KLT 603, held that if there is a plausible explanation to the question why the business was not run in the premises continuously, it may be a relevant fact in considering whether there was reasonable cause for cessation of occupation.
We think that the reviewing authority must make a determination on the basis of the whole evidence before it, whether a reasonable man would in the circumstances infer that there is real likelihood of bias. The court must look at the impression which other people have.
The test provided for interpreting the word ‘reasonable’ in the extract quoted above has been followed in a large number of decisions and it is not necessary to refer to them. It emerges from these observations that the restrictions imposed by a law may be reasonable in their substantive provisions but the operation of the law may amount to an unreasonable restriction because no adequate provision has been made in the procedural part of the law to safeguard the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
All administrative power vested in public authority must be structured within a system of controls informed by both relevance and reason
I can refer to two decisions of the Apex Court in relation to exercise of controlled discretion and quote relevant passages from them. The first would be the case of Suman Gupta […]
KEYWORDS:- JUDICIAL REVIEW-imposing reasonable restrictions-test of reasonableness Court naturally attaches great weight to the legislative Judgment, it cannot desert its own duty to determine finally the constitutionality of an impugned statute. DATE:- […]