Imp. Rulings - Mandatory or directory

 Imp. Rulings - Mandatory or directory

Index;

1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Manbodhan Lal Shrivastava [AIR1957 SC 912 at page 917]

2. The Privy Council in ‘Montreal Street Railway Vs. Normandin’ [AIR 1917 PC 142]

3. Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘Lalaram Vs. Jaipur Development Authority’ [(2016) 11 SCC 31]

 

------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Manbodhan Lal Shrivastava’ [AIR1957 SC 912 at page 917] held that;

• “..Hence, the use of the word “shall” in a statute, though generally taken in a mandatory sense, does not necessarily mean that in every case it shall have that effect, that is to say, that unless the words of the statute are punctiliously followed, the proceeding, or the outcome of the proceeding, would be invalid. On the other hand, it is not always correct to say that where the word “may” has been used, the statue is only permissive or directory in the sense that noncompliance with those provision will not render the proceeding invalid. In that connection, the following quotation from Crawford on ‘Statutory Construction’- art. 261 at p. 516, is pertinent:

• “The question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed. The meaning and intention of the legislature must govern, and these are to be ascertained, not only from the phraseology of the provisions but also by considering its nature, its design, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other….””

 

-------------------------------------------------

The Privy Council in ‘Montreal Street Railway Vs. Normandin’ AIR 1917 PC 142 had laid down following principles of statutory interpretation:

• “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 in neglect of this duty would work serious general inconvenience, or injustice to persons who have no control over those who are entrusted with the duty, and at the same time would not promote the main object of the Legislature, it has been the practice to hold such provisions to be directory only.”

 

-----------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Apex Court in (2016) 11 SCC 31 in ‘Lalaram Vs. Jaipur Development Authority’ wherein paragraph 106 following has been held:

• “106. As noticed hereinabove, it is affirmatively acknowledged as well that where provisions of a statute relate to the performance of a public duty and where the invalidation of acts done in neglect of these have the potential of resulting in 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 main object of the legislature, such prescriptions are generally understood as mere instructions of the guidance of those on which the duty is imposed and are regarded as directory. It has been the practice to hold such provisions to be directory only, neglect of those, though punishable, would not, however, affect the validity of the acts done. At the same time where however, a power or authority is conferred with a direction that certain regulation or formality shall be complied with, it would neither be unjust nor incorrect to exact a rigorous observance of it as essential to the acquisition of the right of authority.”

 

---------------------------------------------------