2008 Supreme(SC) 731

2008(3) Supreme 290
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Jagmohan Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Punjab & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 3044 of 2008
Decided on : 29-04-2008

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Power of forfeiture should be taken recourse to as a last resort and the action of the statutory authority is required to be judged on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
2. Order 47 Rule 1of the Code of Civil Procedure does not preclude High Court or a court to take into consideration any subsequent event.

Headnote:Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Authority Act, 1995 – Sections 2(m),45(3), 45(4) – Invitation of applications for allotment of 3950 free hold residential plots by respondent1-Application by appellant for allotment of a plot and deposit of requisite earnest money – Forfeiture of earnest money on non deposit of balance amount by appellant – Revision application – Dismissed – Writ petition-Dismissed – Review application – Dismissed – Appeal – Plea of appellant that in view of fact that by reason of forfeiture of earnest money deposited by him, appellant suffered civil consequences, respondents were bound to comply with principles of natural justice particularly when in almost similar situation not only possession had been granted upon condoning delay but also permission had been granted to mortgage properties to others who were similarly situated – Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 45 of the Act held not stricto sensu applicable as principles of natural justice, as envisaged therein, were required to be complied with only in cases of transferees – However Estate Officer did not take into consideration fact that appellant had applied for transfer – Appellant had also sought for extension of time to deposit amount – No order, however, had been passed on application for transfer – Admittedly, no show cause notice was issued- Almost in a similar situation the Revisional Authority itself in exercise of its statutory power had granted extension – Forfeiture of earnest money, therefore, had not been adhered to in a large number of cases – Power of forfeiture should be taken recourse to as a last resort and the action of the statutory authority is required to be judged on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – The High Court in its judgment failed to consider this aspect of the matter – In peculiar facts and circumstances of case, impugned judgments set aside in the interests of justice and matter remitted to Revisional Authority for consideration of appellant’s case afresh – Appeal disposed of. (Paras 12 to 18)

        Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 47 Rule 1 – Application for review – Maintainability of-Application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason – Order 47 Rule 1of the Code of Civil Procedure does not preclude High Court or a court to take into consideration any subsequent event – If imparting of justice in a given situation is the goal of the judiciary, the court may take into consideration (of course on rare occasions) the subsequent events. (Para 15)

        [(2005) 4 SCC 741] – Relied upon.

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Issue in consideration in present case was whether Forfeiture of earnest money by respondents on non deposit of balance amount by appellant in a case relating to allotment of plot was justified. Plea of appellant that in view of fact that by reason of forfeiture of earnest money deposited by him, appellant suffered civil consequences, respondents were bound to comply with principles of natural justice particularly when in almost similar situation not only possession had been granted upon condoning delay but also permission had been granted to mortgage properties to others who were similarly situated.

       Findings of the Court :

        Almost in a similar situation the Revisional Authority itself in exercise of its statutory power had granted extension. Forfeiture of earnest money, therefore, had not been adhered to in a large number of cases . Power of forfeiture should be taken recourse to as a last resort and the action of the statutory authority is required to be judged on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.. The High Court in its judgment failed to consider this aspect of the matter. In peculiar facts and circumstances of case, impugned judgments set aside in the interests of justice and matter remitted to Revisional Authority for consideration of appellant’s case afresh.

       Result : Appeal disposed of.