2011 Supreme(SC) 137

2011 (1) Supreme 697
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CJI.S.H. Kapadia, K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Joydeep Mukharjee — Petitioner
versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. — Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.43 of 2006
Decided on : 3-2-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
The principles of finality as well as fairness demand that there should be an end to the litigation and it is in the interest of public that the issues settled by the judgments of courts, which have attained finality should not be permitted to be re-agitated all over again.

Headnote:Public Interest Litigation- Public Interest Litigation filed by Petitioner, a public spirited person from State of West Bengal and a member of All India Legal Aid Forum, for appointment of a committee functioning under direct supervision of court to scrutinize all cases of discretionary allotments and for issuance of a writ of and/or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing all allotments of Government lands in Salt Lake City made unconstitutionally, illegally, arbitrarily, whimsically, capriciously with mala fide motive and in clandestine manner in colourable and arrogant exercise of so-called “Discretionary Power” by the respondent- The challenge of the petitioner was primarily based upon ground that discretionary quota for distribution of plots in the Salt Lake City was arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the Master Plan- Evidence on record showed that there were very few plots presently left for allotment under the discretionary quota- The State Government had taken a conscious decision not to make further allotments under the discretionary quota even qua those plots- As far as already allotted plots were concerned, rights of parties appeared to have been settled and attained finality, as in none of the writ petitions/appeals filed for said purpose any of these allotments was set aside by the Courts of competent jurisdiction- The petitioners in those cases, in fact, did not even care to take further proceedings to have the matters adjudicated before the higher Courts and in accordance with law- In these circumstances held that it would be a futile exercise of jurisdiction of this Court to reopen the whole controversy once again- The questions raised in the present petition had become merely academic as the rights of parties had been finally settled and further the parties had acted thereupon to their respective prejudices- Public Interest Litigation having no merit dismissed. (Para 17)

       Facts of the Case :

        Public Interest Litigation was filed herein in the instant case by Petitioner, a public spirited person from State of West Bengal and a member of All India Legal Aid Forum, for appointment of a committee functioning under direct supervision of court to scrutinize all cases of discretionary allotments and for issuance of a writ of and/or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing all allotments of Government lands in Salt Lake City made unconstitutionally, illegally, arbitrarily, whimsically, capriciously with mala fide motive and in clandestine manner in colourable and arrogant exercise of so-called “Discretionary Power” by the respondent. The challenge of the petitioner was primarily based upon ground that discretionary quota for distribution of plots in the Salt Lake City was arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the Master Plan. Grievance of petitioner that , by allotting lands earmarked for civic amenities, State had violated its promise extended in the Master Plan on the basis of which people had purchased plots in the scheme and, as such, these allotments tantamounted to undue enrichment of the State at the cost of the allottees.

       Findings of the Court :

        Evidence on record showed that there were very few plots presently left for allotment under the discretionary quota. The State Government had taken a conscious decision not to make further allotments under the discretionary quota even qua those plots. As far as already allotted plots were concerned, rights of parties appeared to have been settled and attained finality, as in none of the writ petitions/appeals filed for said purpose any of these allotments was set aside by the Courts of competent jurisdiction. The petitioners in those cases, in fact, did not even care to take further proceedings to have the matters adjudicated before the higher Courts and in accordance with law. In these circumstances held that it would be a futile exercise of jurisdiction of this Court to reopen the whole controversy once again. The questions raised in the present petition had become merely academic as the rights of parties had been finally settled and further the parties had acted thereupon to their respective prejudices. Public Interest Litigation having no merit was dismissed.