SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.
Delhi Development Authority, Petitioner
VERSUS
Skipper Construction and another, Respondent.
Spl. Leave Petn. (C) No.21000 of 1993, D/- 29-11-1995.
Delhi Development Authority Act – Section 41 – Context in which the said Order was made is explained in the judgment rendered by the said Bench. Pursuant to the said request, held an enquiry and has submitted his report – After receipt of the report, notice was given to the parties before us to assist us in the matter of passing appropriate orders on the basis of the said report – In particular, court requested, Advocate, to assist us in formulating the appropriate directions in the matter. Copies of the report were made available to all the learned counsel concerned herein – Particular, we requested, Advocate, to assist us in formulating the appropriate directions in the matter – Copies of the report were made available to all the learned counsel concerned herein – Learned Judge stated that both of them sacrificed the interest of D.D.A. and went on recommending and granting extensions for which there was absolutely no justification –Held, Court take note of the fact that by that time the matter relating to sale of the said plot to Skipper had become sufficiently complicated. Having regard to these facts – Court direct that discplinary proceedings for a minor penalty be taken by the Government of India (Department of Personnel) against him for the irregularities committed by him as the Vice-Chairman of the D.D.A – Report of and the material gathered by Justice shall constitute the basis for taking such action – Court are not directing any disciplinary proceedings against in view of the Report of the C.B.I. mentioned supra – It may be noticed to by Justice only for the period upto and the Report of the C.B.I. covers this period – It is directed that no court authority shall be competent to inderdiet or otherwise interfere with the disciplinary or other proceedings that may by taken against the aforesaid authorities pursuant to this Order – Any further directions necessary in that behalf can be sought for from this Court – Disciplinary proceedings shall be commenced within three months from this date and shall be concluded within one year – Order accordingly.
Judgement
ORDER :- By Order dated November 29, 1994, a Bench of this Court (P.B.Sawant, S. Mohan, JJ and one of us, B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J.) requested Mr. Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, former Judge of this Court "to investigate into the conduct of the officials of the D. D. A. including its ex-officio Chairman at the relevant time, in handing over the possession of the suit-land in M/s. Skipper Construction Pvt. Ltd. before receiving the auction amount in full and also in conniving at the construction thereon as well as at the advertisements given by it for booking the premises in the building in question." The learned Judge was also asked to "look into the legality and propriety of the order dt. 4-10-1988 passed by the then ex-officio Chairman of the .D.D.A. and the directions given by the Central Government under Section 41 of the Delhi Development Authority Act. "The context in which the said Order was made is explained in the judgment dated January 25, 1995* rendered by the said Bench. Pursuant to the said request, Mr. Justice Chinnappa Reddy held an enquiry and has submitted his report dated July 7, 1995. After receipt of the report, notice was given to the parties before us to assist us in the matter of passing appropriate orders on the basis of the said report. In particular, we requested Sri Raju Ramchandran, Advocate, to assist us in formulating the appropriate directions in the matter. Copies of the report were made available to all the learned counsel concerned herein. We heard them on November 17, 1995.
* Reported in 1995 AIR SCW 920
2. Paragraph 59 of the Report contains a summary of the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge. So far as the period January, 1981 to March, 1982 is concerned, the learned Judge found Sri S. C. Dikshit, Director (C. L.) and Sri V. S. Ailawadi, Vice-Chairman, responsible for several irregularities. The learned Judge stated that both of them sacrificed the interest of D.D.A. and went on recommending and granting extensions for which there was absolutely no justification. The learned Judge also found that such repeated extensions were in violation of the terms and conditions of auction and unauthorised by any statutory power or resolution of the D.D.A. So far as the period March, 1982 to May, 1982 is concerned, the learned Judge found that Sri. K. S. Baidwan, Secretary to the Lt. Governor, Sri V. S. Ailawadi, Vice-Chairman and Sri Virendra Nath, Commissioner colluded together and stated the implementation of the order of the Lt. Governor Sri S. L. Khurana directing cancellation of the bid and thereby facilitated M/s. Skipper Construction Company to obtain an order of stay from the Civil Court. The learned Judge further found that though the D.D.A. did adopt a resolution as far back as May 14, 1984 accepting the recommendations of the Committee (appointed by it) devising a scheme for recovering the balance amount due from Skipper in instalments in view of the subsequent developments, Sri R. S. Sethi, Commissioner (Lands) designedly delayed the execution of the agreement thereby enabling skipper to dupe the innocent members of the public by selling the same space in the proposed building to more than one person. The learned Judge also found that Sri Prem Kumar, Vice-Chairman, was a silent accessory to the role 716 played by Sri Sethi. The learned Judge held that the process of recovery of the balance bid amount was stalled in the first instance by repeated extensions granted by Sri Ailawadi and Sri Dikshit and next by the actions of S/Sri Ailawadi, Baidwan and Virender Nath which facilitated Skipper to obtain stay from the Court. The learned Judge recorded further that the process of recovery was stalled finally "by the turn about taken by Sri. H. L. Kapur, Lt. Governor and Sri Om Kumar, Vice-Chairman who twisted the issue by linking the question of payment with and subjecting the same to the sanctioning of the building plans by the order embodied in the letter dated October 14, 1988". The le
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.