2010 Supreme(SC) 209

2010 (2) Supreme 284
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Jasbir Singh Chhabra and others — Appellants
versus
State of Punjab and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.2228 of 2010
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.1969 of 2006)
Decided on : 9-03-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
It is trite to say that while exercising power of judicial review, superior courts should not readily accept the charge of malus animus laid against the State and its functionaries.

Headnote:Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 – Allotment of residential plots in Phases VIII-A and VIII-B, Mohali, Punjab developed by the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd-Issue in consideration Whether appellants were entitled to said allotment -Writ petitioners by invoking doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation and urged that even though the application form contained a stipulation that acceptance of application and earnest money will not put the Corporation under an obligation to allot a plot to the applicant, they were reasonably sure of getting residential plots because in 2002 the Corporation had undertaken a similar exercise and allotted 138 freehold plots in focal point, Mohali by inviting applications and holding draw of lots- High Court refused to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel in favour of writ petitioners-Appeals against order passed by High Court- The plea of the writ petitioners that they had legitimate expectation of being allotted residential plots in Phases VIII-A and VIII-B in Mohali because in 2002, 138 plots were allotted to the successful applicants sans merit- Writ petitioners had submitted applications knowing fully well that the same would not obligate the Corporation to allot plots to them- It was rather intriguing that even though approval of the layouts of residential pockets in Phases VIII-A and VIII-B, Mohali by Plan Approval Committee of Corporation was subject to approval being accorded by the competent authority under the 1995 Act for change of land use from industrial to residential, and the Allotment Committee in which Managing Director of the Corporation had taken part, made a negative recommendation in the matter of allotment of land for housing purposes, the same officer authorized issue of advertisement dated 23.3.2004 for holding provisional draw of lots-Held , this exercise was wholly unnecessary and uncalled for- If the concerned officer had not acted in haste and waited for the decision of competent authority on issue of change of land use, the parties may not have been forced to fight this unwarranted litigation- Writ petitioners could not, by any stretch of imagination, claim that they had a legitimate expectation in the matter of allotment of plots despite the fact that change of land use was yet to be sanctioned-Plea of discrimination raised by appellants was liable to be rejected because no similarity had been pointed out between their cases and the cases of those who had applied for allotment of plots in focal point, Patiala and Phase VIII (Jeevan Nagar), Ludhiana except that a common draw was held in furtherance of advertisement dated 23.3.2004- In any case, in view of policy decision contained in Memo dated 26.12.2001, allotment made in two other focal points,Could not enure to the appellants’ advantage and a mandamus could not be issued in their favour because that would result in compelling the competent authority to sanction change of land use from industrial to residential in contravention of the policy decision taken by the State Government-Writ petitions filed before High Court dismissed. (Paras 27, 32, 33)

        Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 –Appeals against order passed by High Court- Issue in consideration whether the State Government’s refusal to sanction change of land use from industrial to residential was vitiated by arbitrariness and malafides-No dispute that State Government acquired land and handed over the same to Corporation which, was created for developing infrastructure necessary for industrialization of different areas of the State- The land placed at the disposal of the Corporation was meant to be used for industrial purposes- After carrying out necessary development, Corporation allotted land to those interested in setting up industrial units- In December 2001, State Government approved the proposal of the Corporation for earmarking 20-30% of the land for Industrial Housing in the existing and coming up focal points and growth centres developed by Corporation-The object underlying this policy decision was to provide some land for residential purpose to those who had set up or were intending to set up industrial units and the workers already employed or to be employed in such units- It was felt that the availability of residential facility within the focal point or growth centre will help in accelerating industrialization of the area-This was the reason why phrase ‘Industrial Housing’ was used in contrast to the term ‘residential’ in Memo dated 26.10.2001-This was also the reason why Plan Approval Committee of the Corporation had, while approving layouts of residential pockets in Phases VIII-A and VIII-B had made it subject to approval of change of land use under the 1995 Act-The issue was considered by State Government and an unequivocal decision was taken not to allow change of land use from industrial to residential- The record produced before High Court and documents produced before Apex Court did not show that State Government had sanctioned change of land use in Phases VIII-A and VIII-B, Mohali from industrial to commercial-In the absence of any tangible or substantive evidence to show that State Government had taken a conscious decision to allot the surplus land in Phases VIII-A and VIII-B,Mohali for construction of multiplex complexes or for any purpose other than industrial, Division Bench of High Court was not at all justified in recording a finding that decision contained in Memo dated 5.8.2004 was vitiated due to malafides. (Para 19)

        Judicial Review-It is trite to say that while exercising power of judicial review, superior courts should not readily accept the charge of malus animus laid against the State and its functionaries- The burden to prove the charge of malafides is always on the person who moves the Court for invalidation of action of State and/or its agencies and instrumentalities on ground that the same is vitiated due to malafides and the courts should resist the temptation of drawing dubious inferences of malafides or bad faith on the basis of vague and bald allegations or inchoate pleadings- In such cases, wisdom would demand that the Court should insist upon furnishing of some tangible evidence by petitioner in support of his/her allegations- In a democratic polity functions of Government are carried out by different individuals at different levels-The issues and policy matters which are required to be decided by Government are dealt with by several functionaries some of whom may record notings on the files favouring a particular person or group of persons-Someone may suggest a particular line of action, which may not be conducive to public interest and others may suggest adoption of a different mode in larger public interest- However, the final decision is required to be taken by designated authority keeping in view larger public interest-The notings recorded in the files cannot be made basis for recording a finding that the ultimate decision taken by Government is tainted by malafides or is influenced by extraneous considerations- The Court is duty bound to carefully take note of the same. (Para 20)

       Facts of the Case :

        Whether the appellants in these appeals except the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 14133/2006 are entitled to allotment of residential plots in Phases VIII-A and VIII-B, Mohali, Punjab developed by the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. And whether the State Government’s refusal to sanction change of land use from industrial to residential is vitiated by arbitrariness and malafides are the questions which arise for determination in these appeals filed against orders dated 23.9.2005 and 28.7.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Writ petitioners by invoking doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation had urged that even though the application form contained a stipulation that acceptance of application and earnest money will not put the Corporation under an obligation to allot a plot to the applicant, they were reasonably sure of getting residential plots because in 2002 the Corporation had undertaken a similar exercise and allotted 138 freehold plots in focal point, Mohali by inviting applications and holding draw of lots. High Court however had refused to invoke the doctrine of promissory estoppel in favour of writ petitioners.

       Findings of the Court :

        The plea of the writ petitioners that they had legitimate expectation of being allotted residential plots in Phases VIII-A and VIII-B in Mohali because in 2002 138 plots were allotted to the successful applicants sans merit. Writ petitioners had submitted applications knowing fully well that the same would not obligate the Corporation to allot plots to them. It was rather intriguing that even though approval of the layouts of residential pockets in Phases VIII-A and VIII-B, Mohali by Plan Approval Committee of Corporation was subject to approval being accorded by the competent authority under the 1995 Act for change of land use from industrial to residential, and the Allotment Committee in which Managing Director of the Corporation had taken part, made a negative recommendation in the matter of allotment of land for housing purposes, the same officer authorized issue of advertisement dated 23.3.2004 for holding provisional draw of lots.Held , this exercise was wholly unnecessary and uncalled for. If the concerned officer had not acted in haste and waited for the decision of competent authority on issue of change of land use, the parties may not have been forced to fight this unwarranted litigation. Writ petitioners could not, by any stretch of imagination, claim that they had a legitimate expectation in the matter of allotment of plots despite the fact that change of land use was yet to be sanctioned. Plea of discrimination raised by appellants was liable to be rejected because no similarity had been pointed out between their cases and the cases of those who had applied for allotment of plots in focal point, Patiala and Phase VIII (Jeevan Nagar), Ludhiana except that a common draw was held in furtherance of advertisement dated 23.3.2004.In any case, in view of policy decision contained in Memo dated 26.12.2001, allotment made in two other focal points, Could not enure to the appellants’ advantage and a mandamus could not be issued in their favour because that would result in compelling the competent authority to sanction change of land use from industrial to residential in contravention of the policy decision taken by the State Government.Writ petitions filed before High Court was held liable to be dismissed.

       Result : Ordered accordingly.