1. Court proceedings regarding action taken on various reports and investigations. (Para 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 121
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : S.P.Bharucha : S.S.M.Quadri
Noida Entrepreneurs Association
Versus
Noida
Case No. : 150 of 1997, 529 of 1998
Date of Decision : 1/19/01
Advocates Appeared: Agarwal Ajay K. : Agrawal Alka : Agrawala S.C. : Agrawalalal Alka : Ahmad Altaf : Dhavan Rajeev : Dwivedi Rakesh : Gupta Manjula : Jain R.K. : Krishnan Dayan : Kumar Sangeeta : Maqbool Ejaz : Mishra B.K. : Nayar Nikhil : Rao A.D.N. : Rao P.P. : Sagar E.C.Vidya : Sangal Bharat : Satheye Gopal Balwant
Important Points
The court emphasized administrative accountability by directing the state and development authority to provide sworn affidavits on the status of departmental inquiries and the uniformity of procedures adopted for cancelling allotments, ensuring no arbitrary discrimination exists.
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Accountability
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Administrative Law - Procedural Accountability - Direction to state government and urban development authority to file affidavits regarding status of departmental inquiries and actions taken on reports from a central investigative agency, revenue board, ombudsman and commission of inquiry - Uniformity in procedure for cancellation of allotments. (Paras 4, 5)
(B) Civil Procedure - Service of Notice - Order to effect service through standing counsel upon refusal of service by state officials. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The proceedings involve the monitoring of administrative actions and investigations regarding the cancellation of allotments by an urban development authority. The court sought updates on various investigative reports and the status of departmental inquiries into the conduct of certain respondents.
Findings of Court:
The court noted the lack of instructions provided to the counsel for the state government and observed that official communications sent by the registry had been refused by the state's chief secretary.
Issues: The key issues were whether the state government had acted upon the reports of various oversight bodies and whether the urban development authority had followed a uniform procedure in cancelling allotments.
Ratio Decidendi: To maintain transparency and prevent arbitrary administrative action, the court mandated sworn affidavits to track progress on disciplinary actions and ensure that the procedure for cancelling allotments is applied consistently across all allottees, preventing discriminatory practices.
Result: I.A. No. 9/2000 is dismissed; directions issued for filing of affidavits.
(B) Civil Procedure - Service of Notice - Order to effect service through standing counsel upon refusal of service by state officials. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
The proceedings involve the monitoring of administrative actions and investigations regarding the cancellation of allotments by an urban development authority. The court sought updates on various investigative reports and the status of departmental inquiries into the conduct of certain respondents.
Findings of Court:
The court noted the lack of instructions provided to the counsel for the state government and observed that official communications sent by the registry had been refused by the state's chief secretary.
Issues: The key issues were whether the state government had acted upon the reports of various oversight bodies and whether the urban development authority had followed a uniform procedure in cancelling allotments.
Ratio Decidendi: To maintain transparency and prevent arbitrary administrative action, the court mandated sworn affidavits to track progress on disciplinary actions and ensure that the procedure for cancelling allotments is applied consistently across all allottees, preventing discriminatory practices.
Result: I.A. No. 9/2000 is dismissed; directions issued for filing of affidavits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State counsel had no instructions regarding action taken on various reports submitted to the court. (Para 4 )
3. Court found it strange that state counsel had no instructions given ongoing proceedings. (Para 4 )
4. A party in ongoing proceedings must provide instructions to counsel and explain procedural compliance. (Para 4 , 6 )
5. Court dismissed I.A. No. 9/2000 and directed filing of reports and affidavits within specified timelines. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
6. Must a state provide instructions to its counsel in ongoing court proceedings?
Yes, a state must provide instructions to its counsel in ongoing proceedings; failure to do so without justification is considered strange by the court. (Para 4 )
7. What happens when court-directed service is refused by a state?
When court-directed service is refused by a state, the state must explain the refusal on affidavit, and future service shall be made upon the state's standing counsel. (Para 6 )
S.P.BHARUCHA, J.
(1) I.A. No. 9/2000 in W.P. (C) No. 150/97 is dismissed.
(2) WE have heard the learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel.
(3) MR. Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the C.B.I., states that the C.B.I. report, on completion of investigations, shall be filed within twelve weeks from today.
(4) IN regard to the action taken by the State of U.P. on the various reports that we shall mention, learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P. states that he has no instructions. We find it strange, having regard to the on-going proceedings, that he should not have been given instructions and that he did not seek them. We direct the State of U.P. to state, on affidavit, the present position in respect of:
(1) the departmental enquiry against the 7th respondent,
(2) the action taken or proposed to be taken on the reports of the Chairman of the Board of Revenue,
(3) its stand on the report of the Lok Ayukta and the action, if any, taken pursuant thereto.
(4) the action taken on the report of Justice Murtaza Hussain.
The affidavit shall be filed by the Secretary of the relevant department of the State within eight weeks from today.
(5) NOIDA is directed to explain, on affidavit, the procedure it has followed in respect of the cancellation of allotments and why it appears to have followed a different procedure in respect of some allottees. This affidavit shall be filed within eight weeks.
(6) THE office report dated 16/1/2001 states that the letter of the Registry of this Court dated 12/5/2000 addressed to the Chief Secretary of the State of U.P. was returned with the postal remark "refused to take the envelope, hence returned." In the affidavit which we have directed the concerned Secretary of the State of U.P. to make, an explanation in this behalf shall be furnished. Hereafter all service in these proceedings upon the State of U.P. shall be made upon the standing counsel of the State of U.P. in this Court.
(7) LIST the matter on 4th May, 2001 for directions. Order accordingly.
