Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, holding Clause 1.

6 of the
Agreement and the prices fixed by O&G Ltd. for 06.01.022 as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India;

On 06.01.2022, O&G Ltd. reduced the retail price of petrol by Rs. 5 per litre. PTL had produced a
huge volume of petrol on 04.01.2022 and most of the stock was still unsold. Therefore, on account
of the reduction in the retail price of petrol, PTL had to sell the existing stock at losses, i.e., at a price
lower than the procurement price

Where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and
constitutional law and is therefore violative of Art. 14”. These were the famous words of Justice
Bhagwati in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3, which laid the foundation
stone of the doctrine of arbitrariness. 

Maneka Gandhi v. UOI, (1978) 1 SCC 248, wherein J. Bhagwati had laid down “Article 14 strikes at
arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of
reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-
arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence 

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the test of manifest arbitrariness has been laid
down to invalidate plenary legislation under Article 14.27 The Indian Supreme Court has held that
any legislation which is excessive and disproportionate in nature will be manifestly arbitrary.28 The
United States Supreme Court decided that the action by the any organ of the government which is
unreasonable29 or arbitrary30 is declared to be unconstitutional.31 I

Conditions For Issue of Writ of Certiorari:

 There must be a court, tribunal or an authorised person having a legal right to act judicially.

 Such court, tribunal or officer must acted or passed an order without jurisdiction or in excess
of judicial authority.

 If the order was against the principle of Natural Justice.

 If the order contains an error of judgement.

 If it is against the constitution or contravention to the fundamental rights.

  Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque ( 1955 (1) SCR 1104 1123.), the scope of that
power vis-a-vis an error of law has been stated thus :
 "It may therefore be taken as settled that a writ of certiorari could be issued to
correct an error of law.

he proceedings of judicial court or quasi-judicial bodies subordinate to the High Court can be
subjected to the writ of certiorari. 17 If the matter to be reviewed is one which affects the public at
large,8 anyone can apply for a writ of certiorari 2. 9 It is the duty of the High Court to quash an order
which is manifestly illegal or ultra-vires.

      In U.P.Warehousing Coproration V. Vijay Narain, in this case Court held that Writ of certiorari or
prohibition usually goes to a body which is bound to act fairly or according to natural justice and it
fails to do so. In the same manner where the decision is affected by bias, personal, or pecuniary, or
subject matter as the case may be considered as violation of principle of natural justice.

 High Court is conferred with this power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by part III of the Constitution or for any
other purpose.

 A writ of certiorari can also be issued for declaring any act or ordinance unconstitutional.
And therefore those acts or ordinance will be quashed and declared invalid.

 Case- S. Govindrao Menon v Union of India

undamental Rights, are inherent and cannot be extinguished by any constitutional or Statutory provision
and any law that abrogates or abridges such rights---

9. State of West Bengal and Ors. vs. The Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West

Bengal and Ors. (17.02.2010 - SC)

Appellants: Kirloskar Brothers Ltd.

Vs.

Respondent: Sales Tax Officer and Ors.

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. vs. Sales Tax Officer and Ors. (27.03.1970 - ORIHC) : MANU/OR/0112/1970--
rit application succeeds. We issue a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of the Sales Tax Officer and
the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, and a writ of mandamus

1
Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, AIR 2003 SC 3044
2
Fertilizer Corp. Kamgar Union v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 344
The impugned rule26 here in the instant case confers subjective discretion27 3on the BCI to suspend
an Advocate based on unmentioned and objective parameters. This leads to arbitrariness28 4and is
in contravention of the principles of Art. 14

Natural justice has been held as an inseparable ingredient of fairness and reasonableness.3(Suresh
Chandra Nanhorya v. Rajendra Rajak, (2006) 7 SCC 800.)

vesting of power in a high authority does not ipso facto exclude natural justice.3 6 Gill v. Chief
election commissioner , AIR 1978 SC 851.

Non-observance of natural justice is itself prejudice to any man and proof of denial of natural justice
is unnecessary.38 (Swadeshi Cotton mills v. U.O.I, AIR 1981 SC 818.) In addition to this, where
conclusions are controversial, howsoever slightly, and penalties discretionary, natural justice is a
must.3

Procedural reasonableness forms an element of the concept of natural justice,46 (Dr. Rash Lal Yadav
v. State of Bihar, (1994) 5 SCC 267) therefore, where the authority decides to act hurriedly, the
decision about immediacy is also justiciable.47 (Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC
818.)

 Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Ors., (2015) 8
SCC 519 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the jurisprudential foundation of natural
justice and the necessity of incorporating it in administrative procedures to ensure
fairness and good governance and prevent miscarriage of justice. The judgment also
cites with approval past authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein principles of
natural justice were held to be an integral part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
It was also held that the principles of natural justice were applicable even when there
was no statutory requirement. principles have sound jurisprudential basis. Since the
function of the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities is to secure justice with fairness,
these principles provide great humanising factor intended to invest law with fairness to
secure justice and to prevent miscarriage of justice. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
and Anr. (1978) 1 SCC 248 also the application of principle of natural justice was
extended to the administrative action of the State and its authorities. 

3
Liversidge v. Anderson, 1942 AC 206 (1941, House of Lords).
4
E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597; R.D
Shetty v. The International Airport, AIR 1979 SC 1628
Poonam Vs State of U.P. and Ors. (2016) 2 SCC 779, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
emphasized the need to embed principles of natural justice even when not embodied in
a statute or in the rules framed there under. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also required
that the administrative authorities which passed orders affecting the rights of individuals
need to inform their decisions by principles of natural justice. T

Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as
being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary
procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority
while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such
authority from doing injustice."---  in Canara Bank v. Debasis Das (2003) 4 SCC 557. We
may profitably reproduce the same:

 In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1984, it has been held that the object
underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair
play in action.

The concept of equality and equal protection of law guaranteed by article 14

encompasses within it social and economic justice in a political democracy. 5

The principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well philosophically an

essential element of equality and non-arbitrariness is protected under article 14 and it
must characterise every state action whether it be under the authority of law or in
exercise of exectuvei power without making of law. The state cannot act arbitrarily and
its actions must conform to some standard or norm which is rational or non-
discriminatory.

In ramana dayaram shetty v. international airport authority of india and others, the
expression arbitrarily was defined as: in an unreasonable manner as fixed or done
capriciously or at pleasure, without adequate determining principle, not founded in the
nature of things, non-rational, not done acting according to reason or judgment.

Article 14 strikes at the capricious nature of the legislative or

executive action because an arbitrary action necessarily negates equality.28 6This right has

5
Dalmia cement bharat limited v. uoi (1996) 10 SCC 104
6
Joaquim Dias v R.S. Revonkar (1990) 1 LLN 200, [6].
been recognized as one of the most essential features of the Constitution of Diana. 7

Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at the

arbitrariness of any legislative or executive action and prevents denial of equality against

the actions which are found to be arbitrary.40 8

legislative actions are now covered under the ambit of the doctrine of manifest

arbitrariness, which guards the constitutional guarantee of the right to equality under Article 14 of
the Constitution.429

Statutes have been held as unconstitutional on the ground

of arbitrariness when they are not being capable of making certain, or they appear to be

vague even with the construction of the court.43 10

Courts have, time and again,

struck down the legislations which have granted unfettered powers in the hands of

executives.4811

The State action must be supported by some valid reasons and should be upon due application of
mind. It has to be examined whether the Government had given sufficient reasons for the order it
passed, at the time of passing the order. The Government does not have a carte blanche to take any
decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. It must be
informed and impregnated with reasons. It is thus seen that even in matters relating to contracts or
commercial transactions, the Government ought to act fairly and reasonably and the High Court can
entertain a writ petition on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution when the
impugned act of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable or in breach of
obligations

Lairenlakpam Poireiton Meitei and Ors. vs. The State of Manipur and Ors. (05.02.2021 - Manipur) :
MANU/MN/0017/2021 It is now too well settled that every State action, in order to survive, must
not be susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness which is the crux of Article 14 of the Constitution and
basic to the rule of law, the system which governs us. Arbitrariness is the very negation of the rule of
7
Ashok Kumar Tripathi v UOI 2001 (4) MPLJ 206, [36].
8
Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors AIR 1981 SC 487; A.L. Kalra v The Project and Equipment
Corporation of India AIR 1984 SC 1361; S.G. Jaisinghani v Union of India [1967] 2 S.C.R. 703; State of
Mysore v S.R. Jayaram (1968) 1 SCR 349; E.P. Royappa v State of Tamil Nadu 1974 (4) SCC 3.
9
A.L. Kalra v The Project and Equipment Corporation of India AIR 1984 SC 1361.
10
Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair etc. v State of Kerala AIR 1961 SC 552.
11
48 S.G. Jaisinghani v Union of India [1967] 2 S.C.R. 703.
law. Satisfaction of this basic test in every State action is sine qua non to its validity and in this
respect, the State cannot claim comparison with a private individual even in the field of contract.
This distinction between the State and a private individual in the field of contract has to be borne in
the mind.

Lairenlakpam Poireiton Meitei and Ors. vs. The State of Manipur and Ors. (05.02.2021 - Manipur) :
MANU/MN/0017/2021

Reasonableness and fairness is the heart and soul of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In
other words, the Government ought to act fairly and reasonably. Article 14 strikes at the root of any
kind of unreasonable and arbitrary actions of the State or its instrumentalists

Lairenlakpam Poireiton Meitei and Ors. vs. The State of Manipur and Ors. (05.02.2021 - Manipur) :
MANU/MN/0017/2021

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the principle of equality enshrined in
Article 14 must guide every State action, whether it be legislative, executive, or quasi-judicial

Lairenlakpam Poireiton Meitei and Ors. vs. The State of Manipur and Ors. (05.02.2021 - Manipur) :
MANU/MN/0017/2021