2. Fortune’s case: A person wanted to appear for competitive examinations. Permission was not given by the authorities, alleging that there were certain adverse remarks against him. On the application, the Conseil dEtat required the authorities to submit the file. The authorities pleaded the confidential reports were ‘Act of the State’ and could not be produced. Conseil d’Etat ordered the authorities to submit all the records and files including confidential records, and verified them.
It gave the judgment in favour of Fortune-the applicant, as it found the adverse remarks were baseless. 3. Compensation: A person was injured in an accident occurred in Government factory. Counseil d’Etat imposed the liability on the Government and awarded sufficient compensation to the aggrieved person. 4. Act, 1872: This Act empowered the Government to acquire any match factory run by private persons, and to pay compensation. There was also one another clause, which said not to pay compen-sation, if factory was handedover on the ground of health reasons.
In a case, the Minister ordered for handing over a company under the health reasons and tried to evade the compensation. The Conseil d’Etat got all the records from Ministry and found that the health reasons, but on other reasons. It granted compensation to 20,000 Francs to the owner of the factory. 5. If the same case is brought before the Droit Administrative, the decision would be otherwise.
The French Jurisprudents strongly criticised the decision of English Courts in the case ‘Liversidge vs. Anderson’
1. English Common Law could not permit enhance the rates. It would strictly adhere a see that the agreement should be implemented.
2. It could not be possible in English Common Law Civil Courts. The officials could easily escape on the plea of ‘Act of State’. 3.
In such cases, English Common Law ado ‘measurement of Sovereignity’. If the was done in exercise of Sovereign Pow then the Government could not be held lia If the act was done in exercise of non Sovereign Powers, then the Government could be held liable. 4. If the same thing happened in England, it is very hard to get the compensation from Government. The Ministry can easily escape under the veil of ‘Act of State’. 5. Liversidge vs.
Anderson 1942: During the Second World War, the Secretary of State was Anderson. He ordered to detain Liversidge believing he was a hostile to England. A writ of Habeas Corpus was filed on behalf of Liversidge.
Anderson filed an affidavit stating that he detained Liversidge as there were “reasonable grounds” to believe him as “Hostile”, but did not show any evidence. The King Bench opined that the detention order was not open to judicial review. [Note: The judgment in Liversidge vs. Anderson is identical with Indian case-law A.D.M.
Jabalpur vs. Shivakant Shukla.]