would not have the authority to support its decision, when that is questioned in a competent judicial forum either by way of writ proceedings or otherwise. See for support, Syed Yakoob v. K.S.Radhakrishnan [AIR 1964 SC 477], in which the Constitutional Bench, as can be learnt from what is stated in paragraph 19 of that judgment, laid down that unless allegations are made against the repositories of such power which need a reply from them, such authorities ought not to support such decisions, when under challenge before a superior court or authority. Their Lordships clearly laid down that, in ordinary cases, position of such authorities is like that of courts and other tribunals against whose decisions writ proceedings are filed. They are not interested in the merits of the disputes in any sense, and so, their representation or any particular stand taken by them in such actions before superior courts or tribunals would be even inappropriate. The only exceptional circumstance carved out to this principle is that such authority should have the opportunity to answer any plea of personal mala fides, bias or other personal actuations. No such allegation surfaces in this case after the verdict rendered by the learned single Judge. Not only that, there was no such allegation against the Government even before the learned single Judge. Therefore, we are clear in our mind that this writ appeal at the instance of the State of Kerala and two of its officers in their official capacity, as against the impugned judgment is inappropriate.
