VERY IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Misuse of power by a public official is actionable in tort and in such cases damages awarded are exemplary.
2. A public functionary has to use its power for bonafide purpose only and in a transparent manner.
3. Discretionary allotment of shops/stalls by the then Minister of Urban Development without calling tender as required by the policy of 1994, were wholly arbitrary and speak of misuse of power, so liable to be cancelled.

JUDGMENT

Hansaria, J.-Edmund Burke stated as early as 1777 : "Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist." In 1778, he observed : "An arbitrary system indeed must always be a corrupt one. There never was a man who thought he had no law but his own will, who did not soon find that he had no end but his own profit."

2. According to Francis Beanmount (1584-1616) corruption is a tree, whose branches are of an unmeasurable length, they spread everywhere, and the dew that drops from thence, hath infected some chairs and stools of authority.

3. In the Encyclopaedia of Democracy by Seymour Martin Lipset, Vol. 1, page 310, in the Chapter "Corruption", it is stated that corruption is an abuse of public resources for private gain. It is known that bribes open the way for access to the State for those who are willing to pay and can afford to pay. The situation leaves non-corrupt citizen with the belief that one counts only if one has the right personal contact with those who hold power and also allow persons with money power to get things done to their advantage through back door.

4. In the present case, as we are concerned with alleged motivated, arbitrary and high-handed actions of a Minister, it would be worth-while to point out what role has been assigned in a parliamentary democracy to a Minister. The head of the State (President or Governor in our country, as the case may be,) calls upon the leader of the political party that commands majority to form government and appoints him as Prime/Chief Minister; and on later s advice appoints other Ministers. Business of the Government gets allocated and is run as per business rules framed, which in our Constitution has been dealt by Article 166(3). The executive power of the Government is distributed department wise and one Minister is made the head of that department. That Minister becomes responsible for the actions, acts and policies of his department. He becomes prinicipally accountable and answerable to the people. His powers and duties are regulated by the law of the land. The legal and moral responsibility or liability for the acts or omissions rest solely on the Minister.

5. Having noted the philosophy, sociology and etymology of corruption, as well as the essence of a Parliamentary democracy, let it broadly be seen what had happened in the present case. For this purpose it would be enough to note some of the prima facie conclusions arrived at by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) who was required by this Court to inquire into the matter (which has come to be known as Housing Scam) by order dated 14.2.1996.

6. The CBI has since inquired into the matter in some detail and has by now submitted 4 Interim Reports. According to the CBI, orders of allotment in respect of the shops/stalls in question were passed by Smt. Shiela Kaul, the then Minister of Urban Development, and "all the 6 shops have been allotted by her to her own relation/employees/domestic servants of her family members and family friends. She has allotted 2 shops to her 2 grandsons, one shop to the maidservant of her son, Sh. Vikaram Kaul who is residing in Dubai, one shop to handloom manager of the firm owned by her son-in-law and another shop to a close friend. One shop has been allotted to the nephew of the Minister of State, Sh. P.K. Thungon. While making allotments in respect of stalls, she has allotted most of stalls to the relations/friends of her personal staff and officials of Dte. of Estates." The CBI has also reported that Smt. Shiela Kaul had made ten different categories of persons as the basis for deciding allotments, but even this categorisation was not adhered to while making allotments. The further findings are : (1) "Many other organisations/persons who had also applied for allotment of shops/stalls from time to time were not considered for allotment and no reasons, whatsoever, were assigned for non-allotment of shops/stalls to them"; and (2) "At the time of discretionary allotments mad