A 5-member Bench of the Supreme Court has held that auction is not the only legitimate method for allotment of natural resources. Whatever be the method, if public interest is served, it is constitutional. A report in The Hindu says,
"Justice Khehar, who wrote a separate but concurring judgement, said that natural resource should not be dissipated as a matter of charity, donation or endowment, for private exploitation.
“No part of the natural resource can be dissipated as a matter of largess, charity, donation or endowment, for private exploitation. Each bit of natural resource expended must bring back a reciprocal consideration. The consideration may be in the nature of earning revenue or may be to best subserve the common good. It may well be the amalgam of the two.
“There cannot be a dissipation of material resources free of cost or at a consideration lower than their actual worth. One set of citizens cannot prosper at the cost of another set of citizens, for that would not be fair or reasonable,” Justice Khehar said. "
Justice Khehar's observation is laudable. Had it become a part of a binding judgment, it would have been more welcome.
Since this judgment is a response to a Presidential Reference, the judgment is not binding. However, the government is expected to keep the court's views in mind while allocating any natural resource.
"Justice Khehar, who wrote a separate but concurring judgement, said that natural resource should not be dissipated as a matter of charity, donation or endowment, for private exploitation.
“No part of the natural resource can be dissipated as a matter of largess, charity, donation or endowment, for private exploitation. Each bit of natural resource expended must bring back a reciprocal consideration. The consideration may be in the nature of earning revenue or may be to best subserve the common good. It may well be the amalgam of the two.
“There cannot be a dissipation of material resources free of cost or at a consideration lower than their actual worth. One set of citizens cannot prosper at the cost of another set of citizens, for that would not be fair or reasonable,” Justice Khehar said. "
Justice Khehar's observation is laudable. Had it become a part of a binding judgment, it would have been more welcome.
Since this judgment is a response to a Presidential Reference, the judgment is not binding. However, the government is expected to keep the court's views in mind while allocating any natural resource.
No comments:
Post a Comment