important point
The authorities may have acted in an irregular manner in case of some others, but that does not confer any legal right on anybody to claim a similar benefit.

Headnote:(a)Constitution of India – Article 14 – Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate an illegality; It provides for positive equality and not negative equality – The authorities may have acted in an irregular manner in case of some others – That does not confer any legal right on the appellant to claim a similar benefit – Impugned order being not without sanction of law, no interference required. (Paras 9 and 12)
       (2005) 3 SCC 16; AIR 1996 SC 540; (1997) 1 SCC 35; (1997) 3 SCC 321; (1997) 7 SCC 752; 2001 AIR SCW 4774; AIR 1999 SC 1347; AIR 2001 SC 1877; (1999) 9 SCC 240; (2003) 3 SCC 548; (2003) 5 SCC 437; (2005) AIR SCW 67; JT 2007 (9) SC 140 – Relied upon.
       Facts of the case :
       1.A notice was issued by NOIDA to the appellant for unauthorized additional construction and change of user of land under Section 10(1) of the U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 and requiring it to remove the same within 15 days. Other violations of the sanctioned building plan were also pointed out. This was followed by another notice.
       2.Appellant submitted its reply dated 23.9.2004 pointing out that the construction was completed on 9.10.1992 and completion certificate was issued thereafter. The appellant denied any construction as alleged. Subsequently appellant made a request for changed user of ground floor and upper ground floor which was rejected by NOIDA.
       3.Challenging the order, the appellant filed writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. Under direction from the High Court, the appellant submitted a representation which was rejected. All contentions of the appellant were rejected by the High Court which dismissed the writ petition.
       Findings of the Court :
       Impugned order being not without sanction of law, no interference required.
       Result : Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The authorities may have acted irregularly in other cases, but that does not confer any legal right to the appellant to claim a similar benefit (!) . - Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate an illegality; it provides for positive equality and not negative equality (!) . - An impugned order which is not without sanction of law does not require any interference, and the appeal is dismissed (!) .

What is the right of an appellant to claim a similar benefit when authorities acted irregularly in other cases?

What is the scope of Article 14 in relation to perpetuating illegality?

What is the consequence of an impugned order being without sanction of law?

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—

1.Leave granted.2.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning correctness of the orders dated 27.10.2004 and 31.3.2005 passed by the officers of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (in short NOIDA) and praying for a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the appellant with plot no. P-1, Sector -18, NOIDA.

3.The notice in question was issued for unauthorized additional construction and change of user of land. The notice dated 21.4.2004 was issued by NOIDA under Section 10(1) of the U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It was indicated in the notice that at the time of inspection on 21.4.2004 it was found that the appellant had violated the building bye-laws and directions and terms and conditions in the lease deed which act prejudicially affected the proper planning and amenities of the industrial development area which was against interest of general public. Therefore, appellant was required to remove the unauthorized construction within a period of 15 days and bring the construction in conformity with the sanctioned plan so that interest of the general public was not adversely affected. It was subsequently pointed out that the appellant was not using the ground floor as per the rules and conditions imposed. It was also mentioned that in the event the appellant failed to do the needful, NOIDA was to get the illegal construction removed at the cost of the appellant. Since there was no compliance with the direction, another notice dated 23.8.2004 was sent to the appellant. He was again required to comply with the directions contained in the earlier notice as the ground floor and service floor were not being used as per the conditions of the lease deed. Reply dated 23.9.2004 was submitted by the appellant. It was pointed out that the appellant had completed the construction on 9.10.1992 and completion certificate was issued thereafter. The appellant had not made any construction and the allegations contained in the notice were incorrect. The letter was followed by another letter dated 7.10.2004 in which the request was made by the appellant for changed user of ground floor and upper ground floor. This request of the appellant was rejected by the NOIDA in terms of the communication dated 27.10.2004. It was pointed out that the ground floor was required for exclusive use for parking, but it was being used otherwise and even the basement was being used as office.

4.Challenging the order dated October 27, 2004, the appellant filed writ petition before the Allahabad High Court which was disposed of on December 23, 2004, with direction that the appellants reply dated December 8, 2004 should be decided if not already done by a speaking order. On 31.3.2005, representation filed by the appellant was rejected. The appellant took the stand that he should be permitted to use these floors as was done in the cases of lessees of plot nos. P-4 and P-5 and P-6. The High Court found that appellant made a bare denial relating to allegations contained in the notices that ground floor and the service floors were not being used in accordance with the terms and conditions.

5.Stand of the appellant that there was no contravention was also turned down. The High Court also noted that there was no question of any advantage being granted by the appellant for the purpose of permission granted to the lessor in respect of some other plots. Even in case of allotment of plot No.P-2 and P-3 a departure was made. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

6.Stand of the appellant in the appeal was that discrimination is being made vis-à-vis some others. It is stated that change of policy on the question of regularization was done and the benefit which has been extended to others should be allowed to the appellant.

7.It is stated that there is nothi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1306

important pointThe authorities may have acted in an irregular manner in case of some others, but that does not confer any legal right on anybody to claim a similar benefit.

What is the right of an appellant to claim a similar benefit when authorities acted irregularly in other cases?

What is the scope of Article 14 in relation to perpetuating illegality?

What is the consequence of an impugned order being without sanction of law?

Cases Referred (13)

important point
The authorities may have acted in an irregular manner in case of some others, but that does not confer any legal right on anybody to claim a similar benefit.