Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 111
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
(DIVISION BENCH)
S. C. Sharma and Virender Singh, JJ.
Indore Development Authority and another
v. Sansar Publication Pvt. Ltd.
Writ Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 (Indore); against the order dated 14.11.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 2801/2012;
Decided on 21.2.2019
Purushaindra Kaurav with Ravindra Singh Chhabra,
Additional Advocate General for appellants;
A. K. Sethi with Rishabh Sethi for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- writ of mandamus -- by impugned order, writ of mandamus issued to Indore Development Authority (IDA) for allotment of plot on rates applicable in 1992 -- until and unless there is a legal duty imposed upon IDA to allot a plot, writ of mandamus cannot be issued -- no mandamus can be issued where duty sought to be enforced is of discretionary nature
-- nor can mandamus be issued to compel performance by such public body or authority of an act contrary to law -- IDA being public body, has to take action strictly in consonance with statutory provisions
-- Court cannot direct or compel it to act contrary to law -- order quashed. AIR 1984 SC 1030 and AIR 1985 SC 167 followed. [Para 23
(2) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- writ of mandamus -- High Court can issue writ of mandamus, however, it has to be established that there is a legally enforceable right in favour of person, and public authority or public functionary is denying legally enforceable right to such person. [Para 24
(3) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- power of judicial review is implicit in a written Constitution -- unless expressly excluded by a provision of the Constitution, this power is available in respect of exercise of powers under any provision of the Constitution. [Para 26
(4) Words and Phrases -- mandamus -- writ of mandamus literally means a command -- mandamus is a command issued to direct any person, corporation, inferior Court or Government, requiring him or them to do some particular thing specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of public duty. [Para 26
(5) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- writ of mandamus -- conditions to be satisfied -- petitioner has to establish that he has legally enforceable right -- duty or right being enforced by mandamus should be a duty imposed by Constitution, statute, common law, or by rules or orders having force of law. (1998)9 SCC 412 followed. [Para 27
(6) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh (Vikasit Bhoomiyo, Griho, Bhavano Tatha Anya Sanrachnaon Ka Vyayan) Niyam, 1975 - Rr. 5 and 6 -- M. P. Vikas Pradhikarano Ki Sampattiyon Ka Prabandhan Tatha Vyayan Niyam, 2018 -- Rr. 5, 6 and 7 -- mandamus cannot be issued to direct Indore Development Authority (IDA) to perform a duty or do something which is not provided under statute -- Rules of 2018 do not provide for allotment without following prescribed procedure -- earlier Rules of 1975 also provided a prescribed procedure -- writ or mandamus could not have been issued directing and compelling IDA to allot plot to petitioner contrary to statutory provisions as contained under Rules of 1975 and Rules of 2018 -- respondent wants land belonging to IDA for almost negligible consideration, that too de hors statutory provisions, on ground that land has been allotted to various other newspapers -- no relief can be claimed on ground of negative equality -- land for which petitioner is staking claim -- not in area marked for press complex where land was allotted to other newspaper groups, but in commercial area -- petitioner cannot be said to be an identically placed person -- impugned order quashed -- IDA free to dispose land in question in accordance with law, keeping in view statutory provisions as contained under Rules of 2018. AIR 1985 SC 621, (2014)9 SCC 516, (2012)3 SCC 1, AIR 1984 SC 1030, AIR 1985 SC 167, (1998)9 SCC 412, (2018)4 SCC 218 and (2015)12 SCC 1 followed. (2014) 6 SCC 590, (2012)10 SCC 1, Civil Appeals No. 7184 and 7185 of 2013 decided on 30.10.2018 and Writ Petition No. 3518 of 1992 decided on 9.12.2005 referred to. [Paras 28, 32, 45 to 47
(7) Allotment -- there cannot be allotment de hors statutory allotment rules. [Para 30
(8) Allotment -- Constitution of India -- Arts.14 and 39(b) -- allotment of land and execution of sale deed in favour of respondent -- not for social good, public good or common good -- cannot be dissipated in favour of private entrepreneur virtually free of cost or for consideration not commensurate with its worth without attracting Articles 14 and 39 (b) of Constitution. (2018)4 SCC 218 and (2015)12 SCC 1 followed. (2014)6 SCC 590, No.1 of 2012 (2012)10 SCC 1 and Civil Appeals No. 7184 and 7185 of 2013 decided on 30.10.2018 referred to. [Para 37
(9) Allotment -- of land -- fair and transparent procedure has to be adopted. [Para 42
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && ijekns'k fjV && vkf{kaIr vkns'k }kjk] lu~ 1992 esa ykxw njksa ij Hkw&[kaM vkcaVu ds fy, bankSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks ijekns'k fjV tkjh dh xbZ && tc rd Hkw&[kaM vkcafVr djus ds fy, izkfèkdj.k ij fof/k drZO; vf/kjksfir ugha gks] ijekns'k fjV tkjh ugha dh tk ldrh && ftl drZO; dk izorZu bZfIlr gS og oSosfdd izÑfr dk gks rks ijekns'k tkjh ugha fd;k tk ldrk && u ,sls yksd fudk; vFkok izkf/kdkjh }kjk fof/k ds izfrdwy dk;Z fd, tkus ds fy, gh ijekns'k tkjh fd;k tk ldrk gS && izkf/kdj.k yksd fudk; gksus ds dkj.k] mls dkuwuh mica/kksa ds vfrfu;efu"B vuq:i dk;Z djuk gksrk gS && U;k;ky; mls fof/k ds izfrdwy dk;Z djus ds fy, funsf'kr vFkok foo'k ugha dj ldrk && vkns'k vfHk[kafMrA , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 1030 rFkk , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 167 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 23
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && ijekns'k fjV && mPp U;k;ky; ijekns'k fjV tkjh dj ldrk gS] rFkkfi] LFkkfir fd;k tkuk gksrk gS fd O;fä ds i{k esa fof/kr% izorZuh; vf/kdkj gS] rFkk yksd izkf/kdj.k vFkok yksd ÑR;dkjh ,sls O;fä dks fof/kr% izorZuh; vf/kdkj ls oafpr dj jgk gSA ¼iSjk 24
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh 'kfä fyf[kr lafo/kku esa varfuZfgr gksrh gS && tc rd lafo/kku ds fdlh mica/k }kjk lqO;är% vioftZr ugha gks] ;g 'kfä lafo/kku ds fdlh Hkh mica/k ds v/khu 'kfä ds iz;ksx ds laca/k esa miyC/k gSA ¼iSjk 26
¼4½ 'kCn rFkk okD;ka'k && ijekns'k && fjV dk 'kkfCnd vFkZ gS] lekns'k
&& ijekns'k fdlh O;fä] fuxe] voj U;k;ky; vFkok ljdkj dks mlls ;k muls ,slk fofufnZ"V dksbZ fof'k"V dk;Z tks mlds ;k muds in ls lacaf/kr gS rFkk yksd drZO; dh izÑfr dk gS] djus dh vis{kk djrs gq, funsf'kr djus ds fy, tkjh fd;k x;k lekns'k gksrk gSA ¼iSjk 26
¼5½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && ijekns'k fjV && iwjh dh tkus okyh 'krs± && ;kph dks LFkkfir djuk gksrk gS fd mldk fof/kr% izorZuh; vf/kdkj gS
&& ijekns'k }kjk izofrZr fd;k tkus okyk drZO; vFkok vf/kdkj lafo/kku] dkuwu] fu.kZ; fof/k }kjk] vFkok fof/k dk cy j[kus okys fu;e dk vkns'kksa }kjk] vfèkjksfir drZO; gksuk pkfg,A ¼1998½9 ,l lh lh 412 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 27
¼6½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && e-iz- uxj rFkk xzke fuos'k ¼fodflr Hkwfe;ksa] x`gksa] Hkouksa rFkk vU; lajpukvksa dk O;;u½ fu;e] 1975 && fu- 5 rFkk 6 && e-iz- fodkl izkf/kdj.kksa dh liafÙk;ksa dk izca/ku rFkk O;;u fu;e] 2018 && fu- 5] 6] rFkk 7 && bankSj fodkl izkf/kdj.k dks ml drZO; dk ikyu djus vFkok og djus ds fy, funZs'k djus dk ijekns'k tkjh ugha fd;k tk ldrk tks dkuwu esa micaf/kr ugha gS && 2018 ds fu;eksa esa] fofgr izfØ;k dk vuqlj.k fd, fcuk vkcaVu micaf/kr ugha && 1975 ds iwoZrj fu;eksa esa Hkh] fofgr izfØ;k micaf/kr gS && 1975 ds fu;eksa rFkk 2018 ds fu;eksa esa varfoZ"V dkuwuh mica/kksa ds izfrdwy ;kph dks Hkw&[kaM vkcafVr djus ds fy, izkf/kdj.k dks funs'k nsrs vFkok foo'k djrs gq, fjV D;k ijekns'k tkjh ugha fd;k tk ldrk Fkk && izR;FkhZ dks izkfèkdj.k dh Hkwfe bl vk/kkj ij fd vU; vusd lekpkj i=ksa dks Hkwfe vkcafVr dh xbZ gS] yxHkx ux.; izfrQy ij pkfg,] og Hkh dkuwuh mica/kksa ds ckgj && udkjkRed lekurk ds vk/kkj ij vuqrks"k dk nkok ugha fd;k tk ldrk && ftl Hkwfe ij ;kph nkok dj jgk gS && vU; lekpkji= lewgksa dks tgk¡ Hkwfe vkcafVr dh xbZ] ml izsl dkWEiySDl gsrq fpfUgr {ks= esa ugha] vfirq okf.kfT;d {ks= esa && ;kph ml fLFkfr dk O;fDr ugha dk tk ldrk && vkf{kIr vkns'k vfHk[kafMr && izkf/kdj.k 2018 ds fu;eksa esa varfoZ"V mica/k n`f"V esa j[krs gq, iz'uxr Hkwfe dk O;;u fof/k ds vuqlkj djus dks Lora= gSA , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 621] ¼2014½9 ,l lh lh 516] ¼2012½3 ,l lh lh 1] , vkb vkj 1984 ,l lh 1030] , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 167] ¼1998½9 ,l lh lh 412] ¼2018½4 ,l lh lh 1] 218 rFkk ¼2015½12 ,l lh lh 1 vuqlfjrA ¼2014½6 ,l lh lh 590] ¼2012½10 ,l lh lh 1 flfoy vihy Ø- 7184 ,oa 7185 lu~ 2013 fu.khZr fnukad 30-10-2018 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Ø- 3518 lu~ 1992 fu.khZr fnukad 9-12-2005 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 28] 32] 45 ls 47
¼7½ vkcaVu && dkuwuh vkcaVu fu;eksa ds ckgj vkcaVu ugha gks ldrkA ¼iSjk 30
¼8½ vkcaVu && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-14 rFkk 39¼[k½ && izR;FkhZ ds i{k esa Hkwfe dk vkcaVu vkSj foØ; foys[k dk fu"iknu && lkekftd fgr] yksd fgr vFkok lkoZtfud fgr ds fy, ugha && lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 rFkk 39 ¼[k½ vkÑ"V fd, fcuk] oLrqr% fu%'kqYd vFkok ,sls izfrQy ds fy, tks mlds ewY; ds leifjek.k ugha gks] futh m|edrkZ ds i{k esa viO;; ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼2018½4 ,l lh lh 218 rFkk ¼2015½12 ,l lh lh 1 vuqlfjrA ¼2014½6 ,l lh lh 590] ¼2012½10 ,l lh lh 1 rFkk flfoy vihy Ø- 7184 ,oa 7185 lu~ 2013 fu.khZr fnukad 30-10-2018 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 37
¼9½ vkcaVu && Hkwfe dk && mfpr vkSj ikjn'khZ izfØ;k viukbZ tkuk gksrh gSA ¼iSjk 42
Sharma, J. -- 1. The present writ appeal has been filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 being aggrieved by order dated 14.11.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 2801/2012 (Sansar Publication Pvt. Ltd. v. Indore Development Authority and another).
2. The facts of the case reveal that the sole respondent before this Court Sansar Publication Private Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, came-up before this Court with a prayer for quashment of order dated 14.3.2012 passed by Indore Development Authority by which the allotment of land to the petitioner in respect of plot No. A-7, Scheme No. 54, PU-4, Commercial was cancelled.
3. The undisputed facts further reveal that without issuing any tender notice, a plot was allotted to the sole respondent Sansar Publication Private Limited on 30.4.1992 and possession was also given to Sansar Publication Private Limited on 1.5.1992. A lease deed was executed on 14.2.1997 for a period of 30 years. The plot, which was allotted to the respondent was a commercial plot and the Indore Development Authority also allotted various plots to various newspapers irrespective of their circulation again without adhering to tender process on concessional rates.
4. The allotment of plot to various newspapers in the Press Complex and the allotment of plot, which was done in favour of respondent No.1 i.e. Plot No. 7, Scheme No. 54, PU-4, Commercial was a subject matter of scrutiny before this Court in a Public Interest Litigation filed by one Vijay Kumar Tiwari i.e. Writ Petition No. 3518/1992. In the writ petition, which was preferred by way of Public Interest Litigation, the order dated 17.12.1991 issued by State Government, Department of Housing and Environment was the subject matter of challenge by which plots were allotted to respondent No.1 and other newspapers on concessional rates.
5. The Division Bench of this Court has allowed the Writ Petition No. 3518/1992 on 9.12.2005 and has quashed the allotments in favour of all newspapers as well as in respect of respondent before this Court and all the consequential actions were set aside. The Division Bench of this Court, while setting aside the allotment has certainly observed that Indore Development Authority shall be free to allot the land keeping in view the rule 5 and rule 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Vikasit Bhoomiyo, Griho, Bhavano Tatha Anya Sanrachnaon Ka Vyayan Niyam, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1975”), however, it was made clear by the Division Bench that if the plots are again allotted to the same parties or to other individual in terms of the aforesaid Rules, they will not be entitled for allotment on concessional rates.
6. The respondent pursuant to the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court wrote a letter on 8.2.2006 for inviting the respondent for negotiation in the matter of allotment of plot and again requested on 16.10.2006 for allotment of plot afresh.
7. The respondent thereafter, preferred a writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.1372/2008 before this Court and the Division Bench of this Court while deciding the petition preferred by respondent has directed the Indore Development Authority to consider the matter afresh and an observation was also made that in the case of Chogelal Yadav, it has been held that newspapers also serves educational purpose and after observing the same the petition was disposed of by directing the Indore Development Authority to treat the applications filed by the newspapers as fresh applications and to consider the matter afresh for grant of allotment in favour of the applicants.
8. The respondent again submitted a representation on 25.2.2008 for allotment of land and also submitted a reminder on 13.5.2008. The Indore Development Authority in respec
