Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAVI S. DHAVAN, V. P. GOEL
NEELABH PRAKASHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 7618 Of 1999
Decided On : 03/17/1999
STATUS QUO ORDER - GOVERNMENT ORDERS - PUBLIC POLICY - PROPERTY RIGHTS - URBAN PLANNING - WEAKER SECTIONS - RULE OF LAW - CONTEMPT OF COURT - STAY ORDER - LEGAL AID:
Fact of the Case:
Various writ petitions were filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the Government Orders issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh during the pendency of Special Leave Petitions filed by the State in the Supreme Court. The petitioners contended that the Government Orders violated the status quo orders passed by the Supreme Court and were detrimental to the rights of various sections of society, including leaseholders, tenants, and the weaker sections.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the State respondents had no business to frame public policies, by Government Orders, with the State's appeal pending and upon it a status quo order. It was contended that the Government Orders which have been issued in the face of a pending litigation is itself void. These Government Orders are neither for public good nor the public interest and it will injure the weaker sections who votes with majority but do not know where to have their say. The State is violating the rule of law when it is the cardinal principle in matters under litigation that lis pendenes the state of affairs are not to be disturbed and in matters of property transactions, transfers are prohibited, except under authority and leave of the Court and on such terms as it may impose. The State respondents are encouraging transfer of properties to third parties and strangers.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government Orders issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh during the pendency of Special Leave Petitions filed by the State in the Supreme Court violated the status quo orders passed by the Supreme Court? 2. Whether the Government Orders were detrimental to the rights of various sections of society, including leaseholders, tenants, and the weaker sections? 3. Whether the State respondents had the authority to frame public policies and issue Government Orders in the face of a pending litigation and a status quo order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the Government Orders issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh during the pendency of Special Leave Petitions filed by the State in the Supreme Court violated the status quo orders passed by the Supreme Court. The Court observed that the State respondents were aware of the pending litigation and the status quo orders, yet they chose to issue the Government Orders, which amounted to disrespect for the orders of the Supreme Court. 2. The High Court held that the Government Orders were detrimental to the rights of various sections of society, including leaseholders, tenants, and the weaker sections. The Court noted that the Government Orders allowed for the conversion of leasehold rights into freehold rights, which would benefit the economically sound sections of society at the expense of the weaker sections. The Court also observed that the Government Orders violated the rule of law and the principle of lis pendens, which prohibits the transfer of property during the pendency of litigation. 3. The High Court held that the State respondents did not have the authority to frame public policies and issue Government Orders in the face of a pending litigation and a status quo order. The Court observed that the State respondents should have sought clarification from the Supreme Court before issuing the Government Orders.
Final Decision: The High Court denied the stay orders sought by the petitioners and directed that the petitions be listed after the decision of the Supreme Court in the relevant Special Leave Petitions. The Court also advised the petitioners to apply to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee for legal aid to approach the Supreme Court.
( 1 ) THIS Court has heard these matters at length since 24/02/1999 on different dates. Various counsel of the petitioners have been heard. Those who addressed the Court are Messrs. Sunil Ambwani, Tarun Agarwal, Madhur Prasad and Ravi Kant; on behalf of the State respondents, learned Advocate General and the Chief Standing Counsel.
( 2 ) THE petitioners vehemently prayed that the Court grant a stay order on the Government Order dated 1-12-1998 which has been issued pendente lite the matters pending at the Supreme Court. It is contended that the State of Uttar Pradesh itself was the appellant at the Supreme Court and these Government Orders should not have been issued. It has been brought to the notice of the Court by these petitioners that in similar cases another Honble Division Bench has from time to time passed ad interim orders in writ petitions as and when filed, staying the Government Orders by rendering them inapplicable against a petitioner. It is contended that if this Court may not be persuaded to pass a general order staying the Government Orders, then, it may follow the ad interim order of another Division Bench on each petition, separately, as an ad interim measure, while the matters are pending at the Supreme Court.
( 3 ) THESE matters relate to Government grants which have been made on Nazul properties. The State of Uttar Pradesh declared by Government Orders that Government grants on Nazul estates could be converted as freehold rights. This Court in a decision in re. Satya Narain Kapoor v. State of U. P. and others, Writ Petition No. of 1991 : Decided on 15/10/1997 held that Nazul estates on which Government grants were given could not be made free hold and that the State holds these estates in trust. The Court had declared that grants may continue to be made to progenies and if the lineage comes to an end, then, fresh grants may be made to any person whom the State so desires. This judgment of the High Court was challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh at the Supreme Court. On the Special Leave Petitions of the State of U. P. , the Supreme Court passed ad interim orders on different dates. In effect, the orders of the Supreme Court desire that status quo be maintained.
( 4 ) IT is in these circumstances that the petitioners contend that the State of Uttar Pradesh ought to have due regard to the fact that the State was a litigant before the Supreme Court, and even if there is no stay order the State of U. P. itself should not have disturbed the status quo, while matters are pending at the Supreme Court. It is contended that it is on record that the Supreme Court had passed more than one order directing parties to maintain status quo and in the face of a status quo order the State of U. P. has done exactly what it had intended by pushing a programme of alienation of Government grants and converting them into freehold, and this violates the injunction of the Supreme Court to maintain status quo.
( 5 ) THE petitioners have, in no uncertain terms, firmly yet affirmatively contended that if the Court is not inclined to grant an order, individually, on each of the petitions that the Government Orders would not be applicable to the respective petitioners, as has been done by another Division Bench, and if the Court is also not so inclined to grant a general stay order at all, then the Court be pleased to give sufficient reasons why a stay order may not be granted and their submissions be noticed.
( 6 ) SINCE arguments on these matters began, the Court had indicated to learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of State of U. P. , that the fact that these matters are being considered on whether to grant or deny a stay order, it may not be misunderstood that an opportunity to file a counter-affidavit has not been granted. The Court mentions this because, as of date, no counter-affidavit has been filed in any case. The petitioners assert this by submitting that even in the petitions which were filed
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
