2000 Supreme(All) 1330
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
O. P. Garg, J.
KHURRAM CARPETS (P.) LTD. - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 33321 Of 2000
Decided On : 10/18/2000
S.CHATURVEDI, U.N.Sharma, V.K.SHUKLA
The duty of a public authority to act reasonably and in good faith, and to exercise its powers in public interest and for public good.
Headnote:
TOURISM - Construction of Five Star Hotel - U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 - Section 27, Section 28, Section 28a - The court discussed the construction of a five-star hotel in Varanasi and the Authority's refusal to extend the time for completion. The court highlighted the Authority's duty to pass appropriate orders for validating/renewal of the plan submitted by the petitioners in the light of the directions made by the appellate court as well as the observations made above.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-company sought to construct a five-star hotel in Varanasi. The plan was sanctioned with a three-year completion period, but due to various difficulties, the construction could not be completed within the time-frame. The petitioners applied for an extension, but it was rejected by the Authority. The petitioners challenged this decision in a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Authority had not been fair in dealing with the petitioners and had adopted a hostile and discriminatory attitude. The court directed the Authority to pass orders for the revalidation/renewal of the plan filed by the petitioners and release the same for further constructions according to the original sanctioned plan.
Issues: The issues revolved around the refusal of the Authority to extend the time for completion of the hotel construction, the discriminatory attitude of the Authority, and the failure to comply with the policy decision of the State government for extension of the validity period of the plans.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the Authority to act reasonably and in good faith, and to exercise its powers in public interest and for public good. It also highlighted the need for the Authority to comply with the policy decision of the State government for extension of the validity period of the plans.
Final Decision: The court directed the Authority to pass orders for the revalidation/renewal of the plan filed by the petitioners and release the same for further constructions according to the original sanctioned plan.
( 1 ) IN an attempt to promote and boost tourism in the holy city of Varanasi, which is already on the tourist map of the country, a number of projects have come up. The World Bank has also sanctioned substantial amount to bring Varanasi on International Tourist Map of the world. Construction of new hotels is the integral part of the promotion of tourism. The petitioner-company, i. e. , M/s. Khurram Carpets Pvt. Ltd. is having a tie with Raddison Group of hotels and with a view to construct a five star hotel at plot Nos. 4/1 and 4/2, Mauja Araji Line, mohalla Slkraul, near Varuna Bridge, Varanasi, submitted a plan for sanction to the Varanasi development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") constituted under the provisions of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the act" ). The proposed five star hotel building is to have seven floors besides basement. The plan was sanctioned by the Authority on 9. 8. 1995 and an outside limit of three years was provided to complete the construction work, meaning thereby the life of the sanctioned plan was to expire on august 8, 1998. In view of various difficulties, the constructions as per the sanctioned plan, could not be completed within the time-frame. The petitioners applied on 4. 8. 1998 for extension of time by two years to complete the construction of building. The basement, ground floor and the first floor portion of the hotel building had been constructed. There were certain sharp unauthorised deviations and in view of voluntary compounding scheme, the constructions which were not in conformity with the sanctioned plan were compounded after the petitioners had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,94,908 on 19. 2. 2000. In this manner, the offending constructions on the basement, ground floor and the first floor came to be regularised. The petitioners continued the construction of the second and third floor of the building to which the Authority took an exception and served the petitioners with a notice under Sections 27 and 28 of the Act and called upon them to explain under what authority further constructions are being made as the life span of the original plan had already expired on 8. 8. 1998. The petitioners submitted an explanation that the repeat floors are being constructed strictly in accordance with the original sanctioned plan. The Authority passed orders for stopping further construction work. On May 29, 2000, the vice-Chairman of the Authority directed that the building under construction be sealed in view of provisions of Section 28a (4) of the Act so that the petitioners are prevented from carrying on further construction work on the spot, which according to Authority was an illegal activity, as the original sanctioned map has run out its life. With the police help, the site of the disputed construction was sealed. On the representation of the petitioners, the Commissioner of the division who also happened to be the ex officio Chairman of the Authority passed an order that the premises be unsealed and no interference be caused in the on-going work. Ultimately this order was recalled by the Commissioner of the Division when full facts, it appears, were brought to his notice by the Authority. The application of the petitioners dated 4. 8. 1998 for extension of time was rejected by the Authority on 13. 6. 2000.
( 2 ) THE petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division, who by the impugned order dated July 3. 2000 remanded the case to the Vice-Chairman of the Authority for taking decision afresh in the matter. The direction issued by the Commissioner/ appellate authority, translated into English runs as follows :
"7. In the conspectus of the above analysis, the matter is remanded to the Vice-Chairman, varanasi Development Authority with the direction that in case the appellant (petitioner) submits an application for renewal or revalidation of the originally sanctioned plan as per rules, the