Mala fide

  1. Malice cannot be attributed to the legislature without any strong proof — Under the Constitution law can be enacted either by the Assembly or by the President u/s 41 of the Constitution Act — Ordinance promulgated by the President has got the same force of law as the Act of the Assembly — Presumption that law is made with bona fide reason shall also apply to such law enforced by the president through an Ordinance — Held: The contention that the impugned Ordinance has been enacted with mala fide intention cannot be entertained. Muhammad Yousaf  v. The State and 4 others 2001 SCR 380 (A) 2001 SCR 380 (G)
  2. The official respondents were bound to advertise the vacancy and fill up the same on the basis of merit — The way through which the private-respondent has been inducted in service shows mala fide on the part of the high-ups of the Education Department — Therefore, order passed by the Education Officer cannot be maintained. Naheed Akhter v. Director Education Schools & 4 others 2004 SCR 429 (B)
  3. Mala fide cannot be attributed to the Government in vacuum. Syed Saleem Hussain Kazmi v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2005 SCR 259 (A)
  4. No cavil that mala fide cannot be attributed to the Legislature and — It is even an obligation on the Courts to avoid such finding for the acts and actions of Legislature — If malafide intention transpires from pleadings and same floats upon the very surface of the record, the Court is under its bounded duty to hold that the process is not transparent and is tained with ill-writ. Abdul Rasheed and 85 others v. Board of Trustees and 3 others 2008 SCR 417 (O)
  5. The phraseology “mala fide “literally means” the action taken in bad faith which is usually an action taken maliciously in fact” — i, e. in which the person taking the action does so with personal motives whether to hurt the person against home action is taken or to benefit oneself  — The phraseology is derived from the word “mal” which means a prefix meaning bad and includes malfeasance and mal-practice. Mala fide exercise of powers does not necessarily imply moral turpitude as a matter of law — It only means that statutory powers are exercised for the purpose foreign to those for which it is under law intended — In other words the power conferred by the statute has been utilized for some indirect purpose not connected with the subject of the statute or the object of the statute or the mischief which it seeks to be remedied. A. Rasheed  v. Board of Trustees  2008 SCR 417 (P)
  6. For proving mala fide it shall be specifically alleged and to be proved by cogent and reasonable evidence. Azad Govt. v. Inhabitant of village Baghar 2016 SCR 696 (D) PLD 2006 SC. 394 rel.
  7. —writ of quo warranto—dismissed in limine—challenge to appointment of Judge of the High Court—determination of mala fide of the petitioner—not to be based on presumptions—no inferring circumstances regarding mala fide discussed by the High Court—it is an admitted position that the appellant was neither a candidate for his elevation as Judge when respondent No.7 was appointed nor anything come on the record that he ever created unpleasant situation in the Court or on some other occasions. The learned counsel for respondent No. 7 took the plea that some material in writing is not necessary to ascertain the mala fide rather the same can be gathered from the circumstances, however in the impugned judgment no such circumstances have been discussed. Thus, in such state of affairs it can safely be said that the findings recorded by the High Court are based on presumption. Writ accepted for regular hearing and case remanded to High Court for decision afresh. Raja Waseem Younis v. The Chairman AJ&K Council & 5 others 2019 SCR 803 (A)
  8. —writ of quo warranto—determination of mala fide of petitioner—principle—it is settled law that for proving mala fide it shall be specifically alleged and be proved by cogent and
  9. reasonable evidence.  Raja Waseem Younis v. The Chairman AJ&K Council & 5 others 2019 SCR 803 (B)  PLD 1974 SC 151 ref
  10. —writ of quo warranto—dismissal of writ in limine–determination of mala fide of the petitioner—alleged that petitioner filed writ petition for benefit of others, but failed to point out for whose benefit the writ petition was filed. Nothing available on record in that regard. Thus, keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case in absence of any material available on record the High Court was not justified to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the same has been filed with mala fide. Raja Waseem Younis v. The Chairman AJ&K Council & 5 others 2019 SCR 803 (C)
  11. —If mala fide intention transpires from the record the Court is under its bounded duty to hold that process is not transparent and is tainted with ill-will. Shaheena Naseer Versus Azad Govt. 5 others 2021 SCR 238 (C)
  12. — Mala-fide cannot be ascribed to the legislature and principles to determine the vires of law are more rigid and lean to uphold the validity of law. Azad Govt. & others  v. Kh. Muhammad Saleem Bismal & others 2022 SCR 430 (B) 2015 SCMR 1739 & AIR 1985 SC 551 Ref
error: Content is protected !!