The distribution of ad hoc cement in the State of Maharashtra was contrary to the rule of law and probity in public life.

Headnote:
The petition challenges the method of distribution of ad hoc cement in the State of Maharashtra as being contrary to the rule of law and probity in public life. The petitioners allege that cement was not available from the rationing offices either for building or repair work, that bona fide applications for cement were side-tracked and that cement was given in large quantities to persons who had secured recommendations from the 2nd respondent, Ministers and M.L.As. The petitioners are indignant, inter alia, that (i) whereas in 'D' Zone (Bandra to Dahisar) 4,128 applications are pending for want of cement, it received only 8,808 tonnes against 16,660 tonnes allocated by the Deputy Controller of Rationing, as against which seven applicants received 6,150 tonnes and 142 applicants received 20,260 tonnes directly from Mantralaya, which far exceeded the allocation to the entire 'D' Zone itself; (ii) in 1981, out of 900 applicants, not a single applicant received any cement; (iii) out of several thousand applicants who required cement for mansoon repairs, cement was received by a very small percentage and in extremely small quantities. It is, however, not merely on this indignation expressed by the petitioners but on the principles involved, that a judicial finding must be arrived at in this petition.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenge the method of distribution of ad hoc cement in the State of Maharashtra as being contrary to the rule of law and probity in public life. Initially the petitioners had also challenged the vires of the Foreign Exchange Remittance Scheme. However, at the conclusion of the arguments, that challenge was not pressed.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Government Circular dated 31st March, 1981 was valid and binding and that the hypothesis of mistake and misunderstanding advanced by the State Government in issuing the Government Circular dated 31st March, 1981 was rejected. The Court also found that the petitioners' charge of arbitrariness against the 2nd respondent in making allocations was justified and that nexus and quid pro quo between allotments made by the 2nd respondent in favor of certain builders and donations made by them directly or indirectly was established.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government Circular dated 31st March, 1981 was valid and binding? 2. Whether the hypothesis of mistake and misunderstanding advanced by the State Government in issuing the Government Circular dated 31st March, 1981 was justified? 3. Whether the petitioners' charge of arbitrariness against the 2nd respondent in making allocations was justified? 4. Whether nexus and quid pro quo between allotments made by the 2nd respondent in favor of certain builders and donations made by them directly or indirectly was established?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Government Circular dated 31st March, 1981 was valid and binding because it was issued by a highly placed and responsible Government Officers, viz. the under secretary himself by order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra. It was circulated to all the concerned heads of departments as stated in the Circular itself. A notice was even admittedly put at Mantralaya. This Circular is still in force. In these circumstances, the Government Circular dated 31st March, 1981 read with Government Circular dated 2nd March, 1981 can lead but to one conclusion namely, that Government had decided that ad hoc allotments should be distributed according to the guidelines laid down in the Government Resolution dated 12th September, 1978. 2. The Court rejected the hypothesis of mistake and misunderstanding advanced by the State Government in issuing the Government Circular dated 31st March, 1981 because the reasons given in the affidavits-in-reply for the purported inability to follow the guidelines laid down in the Government Resolution dated 12th September, 1978 were unconvincing. The Court found that the version of the 1st and 2nd respondents that no allocations were made by the 2nd respondent was rejected. 3. The Court found that the petitioners' charge of arbitrariness against the 2nd respondent in making allocations was justified because the endorsements made by the 2nd respondent and the Officer on Special Duty Mr. Lulla, on the builders' applications were a mixed bag. The Court found that the endorsements at Serial Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7 and 10 to 16 unmistakably reflected orders and directives emanating from the 2nd responding for making the allotments. 4. The Court found that nexus and quid pro quo between allotments made by the 2nd respondent in favor of certain builders and donations made by them directly or indirectly was established because the admitted position was that Mrs. Shanti Raheja, Dr. B.S. Raheja, Deepak B. Raheja, Vijay R. Raheja, and Rajan B. Raheja, are all related to each other and in some capacity or other are connected with the concerns comprising the Raheja Group. It was also admitted that on the same day, viz. on 4th July, 1981, and two days after the cement allocation, B.S. Raheja and Mrs. Geeta Raheja also made donations by cheque of Rs. 7,500/- each, aggregating to Rs. 15,000/-. In addition, on the same day, viz. 4th July, 1981, Pearl Corporation, Manali Corporation, Cool Breeze Corporation, Lotus Corporation, Queens Park and D.S. Raheja and Co., also made donations by cheque of Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 40,000/-, and Rs. 35,000/-, respectively aggregating to Rs. 1,95,000/-. Thus on one day itself, viz. on 4th July, 1981 and two days after allocation of 8,000/- bags of cement to the Raheja concerns, the Raheja group and family members made a total donation of not less than Rs. 2,55,000/-.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed in terms of prayer (c)(ii) and (c)(iii) with the addition of the words, "except as provided by the law" at the end of prayer (c)(ii). The State Government was directed to pay to the petitioners Rs. 7,500/- as costs of this petition.

Judgment

B. LENTIN, J.:---The petitioners challenge the method of distribution of ad hoc cement in the State of Maharashtra as being contrary to the rule of law and probity in public life. Initially the petitioners has also challenged the vires of the Foreign Exchange Remittance Scheme. However, at the conclusion of the arguments, that challenge was not pressed.

2. The petitioner are social workers and consumers of cement. The 1st respondent is the State of Maharashtra. The 2nd respondent is the Chief Minister. The 3rd respondent is the Union of India.

3. It is the petitioners' case that as social workers and members of "Samajwadi Manch", an organisation committed to seeing that sale and distribution of essential commodities is done in an equitable manner, they received several complaints from the public that cement was not available from the rationing offices either for building or repair work, that bona fide applications for cement were side-tracked and that cement was given in large quantities to persons who had secured recommendations from the 2nd respondent, Ministers and M.L.As. As the petitioners needed cement for urgent monsoon repairs to their houses, they applied for 5 bags each to the Deputy Controller of Rationing (Bombay Region). However, no cement was made available to them. The petitioners came to know that large quantities of cement were being allotted by the 2nd respondent directly from Mantralaya in violation and circumvention of the statutory distribution scheme. In order to ascertain the factual position for himself, the 1st petitioner visited the Food and Civil Supplies Department in Mantralaya in June 1981, where a notice was displayed that no applications for cement would be entertained at Mantralaya and that all pending applications received in the department had been forwarded to the respective cement distribution committees through the Controller of Rationing/Collector and that future enquiries should be made with the Tahsildar/Food Grains Distribution Officers/Deputy Controller of Rationing concerned. It is the petitioners' grievance that despite this notice and in violation of the statutory cement distribution scheme, large quantities of cement were unauthorisedly, arbitrarily and mala fide allotted directly from Mantralaya by the 2nd respondent to builders, as a quid pro quo for contributions to certain trusts created and controlled by the 2nd respondent in his private capacity and of which he is a trustee, with the result that bona fide applicants received a meagre, and in some instances no allocation at all. Instances of such cement allocation and distribution ranging from 350 tonnes to 1,000 tonnes to builders have been set out in the petition. The petitioners are indignant, inter alia, that (i) whereas in 'D' Zone (Bandra to Dahisar) 4,128 applications are pending for want of cement, it received only 8,808 tonnes against 16,660 tonnes allocated by the Deputy Controller of Rationing, as against which seven applicants named in the petition received 6,150 tonnes and 142 applicants received 20,260 tonnes directly from Mantralaya, which far exceeded the allocation to the entire 'D' Zone itself; (ii) in 1981, out of 900 applicants, not a single applicant received any cement; (iii) out of several thousand applicants who required cement for mansoon repairs, cement was received by a very small percentage and in extremely small quantities. It is, however, not merely on this indignation expressed by the petitioners but on the principles involved, that a judicial finding must be arrived at in this petition.

4. It was urged by Mr. Desai, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that allotments of ad hoc allocations received by the State Government form the Central Government, must be made in accordance with a certain Circular issued by the State Government on 31st March, 1981 read with Government Circular dated 2nd March, 1981 read with the guidelines laid down in a Government Resolut

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1982 Supreme(Bom) 4

The distribution of ad hoc cement in the State of Maharashtra was contrary to the rule of law and probity in public life.

Login now and unlock premium legal research