Back
2003(8) Supreme 129
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
V.N. Khare, CJI., Ashok Bhan & S.B. Sinha, JJ.
Chairman and M.D., B.P.L. Ltd. -Appellant
versus
S.P. Gururaja & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2166 of 1998
With
C.A.No. 2167 of 1998
Decided on 13-10-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, D.A. Dave, T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Adovcates, Aditya Narain, Rajan Narain, Ms. Vandana Chugh, Ms. Puja Sharma, Saurabh Kirpal, Ms. Kiran Suri, G.V. Chandrashekhar, Advocate for P.P. Singh, Sanjay R. Hegde, Advocates.
Held : In the facts and circumstances, we do not find that the Board and the State had committed any illegality which could have been a subject matter of judicial review. The High Court in our opinion committed a manifest error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the delay in this case had defeated equity. The allotment was made in the year 1995. The writ application was filed after one year. By that time the Company had not only took possession of the land but also made sufficient investment. Delay of this nature shall have been considered by the High Court to be of vital importance. Furthermore, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the factum of resistance in the matter from those persons whose lands have been acquired. Only because the lands are vested in the State upon acquisition thereof, the same by itself would not mean that the persons whose lands were acquired were not interested in getting the allotment. The locus standi of the respondent ought to have been taken into consideration having regard to the specific pleas raised in this behalf by the appellants herein. Undue haste also is a matter which by itself would not have been a ground for exercise of power of judicial review unless it is held to be malafide. What is necessary in such matters is not the time taken for allotment but the manner in which the action had been taken. The court, it is trite, is not concerned with the merit of the decision but the decision making process. In absence of any finding that any legal malice was committed, the impugned allotment of land could not have been interfered with. What was only necessary to be seen was as to whether there had been a fair play in action. The question as to whether any undue haste has been shown in taking an administrative decision is essentially a question of fact. The State had devolved a policy of Single Window System with a view to get rid of red-tapism generally prevailing in the bureaucracy. A decision which has been taken after due deliberations and upon due application of mind cannot be held to be suffering from malice in law on the ground that there had been undue haste on the part of the State and the Board. (Paras 33 to 36)
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.-How economic development of a State can be halted by a Public Interest Litigation has received the attention of this Court in some of its decisions. The case at hand adds to the said list.
Backdrop Facts :
2. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board ) is a statutory authority constituted under Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966. It acquired a vast tract of land inter alia for the purpose of allotment thereof to entrepreneurs who intended to set up industries in the State of Karnataka. The State of Karnataka with a view to accelerate economic development of the State adopted a policy decision of dealing with the applications received from the entrepreneurs through one window system. With a view to achieve the said objective a High Level Committee was constituted. B.P.L. Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company ) with a view to set up industries applied for allotment of 500 acres of land for its three projects. The said application was considered by the High Level Committee wherein a decision was taken to allot 175 acres of land in favour of the Company at Rs. 92/- per sq.m. The Company was held to be entitled to various other incentives for the aforementioned purposes. Such allotment was made by issuing an order dated 7.4.1995 out of the land acquired by it i.e. 296.26 acres in terms of notification dated 2/4th September, 1991 issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966.
Public Interest Litigation :
3. The respondents filed a public interest litigation questioning the said allotment inter alia on the ground that the statutory purposes for which the Board can acquire the land had been breached by reason thereof. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 describing themselves to be the social workers in the writ petition raised the following contentions :
(a) That the Board can acquire the land only for the purposes (three in number as stated in the Act).
(b) That the land to other Entrepreneurs is sold at the rate of Rs. 8,80,000/- per acre whereas it is sold to BPL at Rs. 3,72,324/- per acre.
(c) That the allotment being contrary to Regulations is arbitrary and unreasonable.
(d) That the allotment is made without inviting applications and without notifying the availability of land to general public.
(e) That the exercise of power is mala fide and suffers from legal malice.
4. The contentions of the Board, on the other hand, were :
(a) That the respondents have no locus standi to maintain the writ petition as legal rights of the general public have not been infringed.
(b) No notice under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. having been published, the writ petition was not maintainable.
(c) That the Government of Karnataka in exercise of its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution of India has established a single window Agency to accord, with significant authenticity, sanction/clearance/approval to the establishment of new Industries of expansion of existing units, which include sanction of infrastructural facilities like land, power, water, finance etc. Wherever an Industrial Project involves an investment beyond fifty crores, the decision to accord sanction/approval/clearance shall be taken by High Level Committee.
(d) That the High Level Committee constituted under the said Government orders in its meeting held on 10.10.1994 and 24.1.1995 recommended that :
(i) 220 Acres of land be made available immediately to BPL group at Dobospet Industrial Area for implementing colour picture tube and batteries project.
(ii) Additional land acquisition be initiated by the Karnataka Industrial area Development Board on the basis of justification of total land requirement of 500 acres to be furnished by the group.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
