Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.P.Sethi and R.L.Anand JJ.
Seven Seas Educational Society
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula
Letter Patent Appeal No. 1368 of 1992,
Decided On : MARCH 1, 1996
SCHOOL SITE ALLOTMENT - ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS - RULE OF LAW - FAIRNESS - PUBLIC INTEREST - ILLEGALITY - QUASHING OF ALLOTMENTS - PROTECTION OF INTERESTS OF STUDENTS, TEACHERS, AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS. 1. The rule of law requires that the executive government and its officers act fairly, impartially, and in accordance with the provisions of law. 2. The principle of natural justice requires that decisions, whether executive, administrative, or judicial, must be just, impartial, and objective, and not arbitrary or capricious. 3. The allotment of school sites by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) must be made in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and the Haryana Development (Disposal of Land and Building) Regulations, 1978. 4. The allotment of school sites must be made on the basis of a uniform and reasonable criterion, and not on the basis of favoritism or arbitrariness. 5. The allotment of school sites must be made through a transparent and fair process, such as open auction or invitation of tenders. 6. The allotment of school sites must be made in the public interest, and not for the personal benefit of any individual or group. 7. If the allotment of school sites is found to be illegal, arbitrary, or capricious, the Court may quash the allotments and direct the HUDA to make fresh allotments in accordance with the law. 8. In the interest of students, teachers, and the construction costs incurred by the allottees, the Court may provide for the protection of their interests while quashing the illegal allotments.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were unsuccessful in obtaining allotments of school sites from the HUDA, filed writ petitions challenging the allotment process as illegal, arbitrary, and capricious. The HUDA had allotted the sites to private respondents without following the prescribed procedure and without adopting any uniform criterion. The learned single Judge held that the allotment process was illegal and arbitrary, but declined to quash the allotments in the public interest. The petitioners filed appeals against the judgment of the learned single Judge, and the private respondents filed cross-objections.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the allotment of school sites by the HUDA was illegal, arbitrary, and capricious. The Court found that the HUDA had not followed the prescribed procedure and had not adopted any uniform criterion for making the allotments. The Court also found that the allotments were made on the basis of favoritism and arbitrariness. The Court further held that the learned single Judge erred in not quashing the allotments, as the public interest did not require that the illegal allotments be allowed to continue.
Issues: 1. Whether the allotment of school sites by the HUDA was illegal, arbitrary, and capricious? 2. Whether the learned single Judge erred in not quashing the allotments? 3. Whether the public interest required that the illegal allotments be allowed to continue?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the allotment of school sites by the HUDA was illegal, arbitrary, and capricious because: * The HUDA had not followed the prescribed procedure for making the allotments. * The HUDA had not adopted any uniform criterion for making the allotments. * The allotments were made on the basis of favoritism and arbitrariness. 2. The Court held that the learned single Judge erred in not quashing the allotments because: * The allotments were illegal and arbitrary. * The public interest did not require that the illegal allotments be allowed to continue. 3. The Court held that the public interest did not require that the illegal allotments be allowed to continue because: * The allotments were made in violation of the law. * The allotments were not made in a fair and transparent manner. * The allotments were not made in the best interests of the students and the community.
Final Decision: The Court accepted the appeals and modified the judgment of the learned single Judge by quashing the allotments made in favor of the private respondents. The Court directed the HUDA to make fresh allotments in accordance with the law, while protecting the interests of students, teachers, and the construction costs incurred by the private respondents.
R. P. SETHI, J.
1. "Substantial agreement in juristic thought that the great purpose of the rule of law notion is the protection of the individual against arbitrary exercise of power, wherever it is found" observed Justice Mathew in his article The Welfare State, Rule of Law and Natural Justice.
"It is indeed unthinkable that in a democracy governed by the rule of law the executive Government or any of its officers should possess arbitrary power over the interests of the individual. Every action of the executive Government must, be informed with reasons and should be free from arbitrariness"
declared the Supreme Court in Ramana V/s. I.A. Authority of India AIR 1979 SC 1628. The application of the principle and the rule of law makes no difference whether the exercise of power involves affectation of some right or denial of some privilege. The State Government being regulator and dispenser of special services and provider of a large number of benefits, is supposed to act fairly, impartially and in accordance with the provisions of law.
2. The Supreme Court in "The Director of Rationing and Distribution V/s. Corporation of Calcutta, AlR 1960 SC 1355, held," that in our country the rule of law prevails which has been guaranteed in our Constitution by virtue of the provisions contained in other parts. It was further held that it was inherent in the conception of the rule of law that the State, no less than its citizens and others were bound by the laws of the land. The Courts in this country have to follow the ordinary principles of construction that no one is exempted from operation of a statute unless the statute expressly guaranteed the exemption or the exemption arose by necessary implication. In a country which has a written Constitution and where the pattern of Government is democratic, as we have in our country, the one outstanding feature of it is the supremacy of law in the realm, commonly known as the rule of law. The term "Rule of law" in brief connotes the undisputed supremacy of law and envisages a state of things in which every one respects the law and where the law has to be followed by everyone collectively or individually. This supremacy of law is designed to give security to the rights of individuals who are the citizens of a free democratic State. The law has to be followed both by the citizens as well as by the State and when transgressed by any one, whether by the State or the individual would destroy the very fabric of the democratic system.
3. The Supreme Court in Mohd. Rashid Ahmed V/s. State of U. P., AIR 1979 SC 592, relied upon its earlier judgment in A. K. Kraipak V/s. UOI, AIR 1970 SC 150, and it was held (at p. 600 of AIR) :-
"In A. K. Kraipak V/s. UOI, AIR 1970 SC 150, there was a reiteration of the principles, albeit in a different form, laid down by this Court in Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei V/s. State of Orissa, (1967) 2 SCR 625 : (AIR 1967 SC 1269) and by the House of Lords in Padfield V/s. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (1968) AC 997, that the executive should not arbitrarily or capriciously act and that the myth of executive discretion is no longer there. Indeed, in Kraipaks case, it was observed (at p. 154 of AIR 1970) :"The dividing line between an administrative power and a quasi-judicial power is quite thin and is being gradually obliterated.... Under our Constitution the rule of law pervades over the anti-field of administration. Every organ of the State under our Constitution is regulated and controlled by the rule of law. In a welfare State like ours it is inevitable that the jurisdiction of the administrative bodies is increasing at a rapid rate. The concept of the rule of law would lose its vitality if the instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging their function in a fair and just manner. The requirement of acting judicially in essence is nothing but a requirement to act justly and fairly and not arbitrarily or capriciously. The procedu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
