1. Auction plot allotment — Payment default — Lease cancellation and forfeiture — Refund of deposit — Subsequent challenge for restoration based on alleged discrimination and policy. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 11 , 13 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND Mrs. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
Chandigarh Administration and another
Versus
Jagjit Singh and another, Respondents. 706
Civil Appeal No. 674 of 1995 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 11609 of 1994) with Spl. Leave Petn. (C) 15931 of 1994
Decided on 10-1-1995.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Swaraj Kaushal and Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, Sr. Advocates, Mrs. Naresh Bakshi and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Advocates with them, for Appellants; Mr. K.K. Venugopal Mr. D. V. Sehgal, Sr. Advocates, Mr. Vimal Dave, Mr. Neelam Kalsi, Mr. Ashok Mathur and Mr. Sanjay Sarin, Advocates with them, for Respondents.
(1) C.W.P. No.3394 of 1992, Dated 14-10-1993 (P & H)
(2) C.W.P. No. 7760 of 1993, Dated 30-11-1993 (P & H)
Important Points
A plea of discrimination cannot be granted merely because an authority passed a particular order for another person. The court must first verify if that order was lawful and the cases are identical; an illegal order cannot be the basis for compelling the repetition of an illegality.
Subject
Writ Petition - Discrimination
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution Of India,1950 - Estate Officer for refund of amount paid - Payment - Chief Commissioner seeking review of his order was dismissed on January 10 1980- A second review met with success- Chief Commissioner directed that plot shall be restored to respondents provided y make entire payment within sixty days from date of his order- He directed that in default of such payment review petition shall stand dismissed vide Chief Commissioners order Instead of paying amount within time prescribed respondents queried how amount directed be deposited Chief Commissioner in his order was arrived at- Be that as it may failed comply with order of Chief Commissioner with result that second review petition filed by m also stood dismissed –Held, Chief Administrator to deposit amount of forfeiture review had been filed and Chief Commissioner had ordered stay of operation of order while disposing of review petition it was incumbent upon Chief Administrator to grant time for deposit of amount due- A perusal of facts case stated judgment clearly discloses that re is absolutely no similarity in facts of that case and present case of that case are different- It is in those facts and circumstances that writ petition - Court are unable to see any relevance of principle of said decision to case before us concerned fact remains that when lease was cancelled on respondent expressing her inability to pay only contention raised by her in appeal was for reduction of amount forfeited- She never questioned cancellation of lease- On amount forfeited being reduced she coolly took back money and kept quiet for a period of seventeen years- It is only after lapse of 17 years that she woke up - evidently in view of rise in prices and approached High Court more in nature of a gamble than for vindicating her legitimate right- explanation given by her for her seventeen years slumber was that she had filed a revision before Administration and was awaiting its result- respondents have denied receipt any such revision- appellant is not able to substantiate her plea- Moreover if indeed she had filed a revision she has not explained why did she wait for seventeen years without making any enquiry about its progress and without making any efforts to have disposed of- It is evident that said plea is a false one invented for purpose of writ petition- It therefore follows that High Court was in error in allowing this writ petition - Accordingly this appeal too is and judgment under appeal set aside- appellants shall be entitled to costs from respondent quantified - Appeals allowed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
ASHOK MATHUR, D.V.Sehgal, K.K.VENUGOPAL, K.Madhava Reddy, KAMINI JAISWAL, Naresh Bakshi, NILAM KAISI, SANJAY SARIN, SVARAJ KAUSHAL, VIMAL DAVE
ASHOK MATHUR, D.V.Sehgal, K.K.VENUGOPAL, K.Madhava Reddy, KAMINI JAISWAL, Naresh Bakshi, NILAM KAISI, SANJAY SARIN, SVARAJ KAUSHAL, VIMAL DAVE
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claimed discrimination and entitlement to restoration based on similar relief granted to another allottee and government policy for defaulters. (Para 6 )
3. High Court erred by granting relief based on an unrelated case without verifying factual identity or the legality of the order in the other case. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 )
4. A writ cannot be issued on the plea of discrimination merely because an authority passed an illegal or unwarranted order in another person's case. (Para 8 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court judgments set aside — Costs awarded to appellants. (Para 10 , 13 )
6. Can a petitioner seek a writ for discrimination if an authority passed a favorable order for another similarly situated person?
Not automatically. The court must first investigate if the order in the other case was legal and valid. An illegal or unwarranted order cannot be the basis for compelling the authority to repeat the illegality. (Para 8 )
7. Should administrative orders in other cases be treated as binding precedents in writ jurisdiction?
No. Administrative orders are not equivalent to judicial precedents of the Supreme Court or High Courts. Each case must be decided on its own factual and legal merits. (Para 8 )
8. Does accepting a refund of the deposit after lease cancellation affect a subsequent challenge to the cancellation?
Yes. Accepting the refund constitutes acquiescence to the cancellation, barring the party from later agitating their right to the plot through review petitions or writ petitions. (Para 7 , 13 )
9. Can a party challenge a lease cancellation after a significant delay without a valid explanation?
No. Such a challenge is viewed as a gamble rather than a vindication of a legitimate right, especially when the party previously acquiesced to the order by accepting a refund. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. :- S.L.P. (C) 11609 of 1994 :
Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents, Jagjit Singh and Jaswant Singh. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are not in dispute and may be stated. Indeed, they speak for themselves.
3. An auction was held by the Chandigarh Administration on September 29, 1975 wherein the respondents were the highest bidders in respect of a plot admeasuring 338 sq. yards, in Sector 31A. Chandigarh for a sum of Rs. 34,500/- The right sold in auction was the lease-hold for ninety nine years. An allotment letter was issued on November 27,1975. The respondents deposited 25% of the money immediately. The balance consideration was payable in three equal instalments, the first of which due on September 27, 1976. The respondents defaulted in paying the same whereupon the Estate Officer issued a notice to show cause as to why the lease in their favour be not cancelled. After giving due opportunity to the respondents, the lease was cancelled, at the same time forfeiting a sum of Rs. 3,450/- representing 10% of the premium. The respondents preferred an appeal to the Chief Administrator against the said action which was dismissed on May 2, 1978. The Chief Administrator, however, reduced the amount of forfeiture from 10% to 21/2%. A revision preferred against the Chief Administrators order was dismissed by the Chief Commissioner on January 1, 1979. The respondents then applied to the Estate Officer for refund of the amount paid by them. After deducting the amount forfeited, the amount deposited by them was refunded in full on April 25, 1979.
4. Having obtained the refund of their amount, the respondents filed a review petition before the Chief Commissioner seeking review of his order dated January 1, 1979. It was dismissed on January 10, 1980. A second review petition, however, met with success. The Chief Commissioner directed that the plot shall be restored to the respondents provided they make the entire payment within sixty days from the date of his order. He directed that in default of such payment the review petition shall stand dismissed, vide Chief Commissioners order dated May 9, 1985. Instead of paying the amount within the time prescribed, the respondents queried how the amount of Rs. 1.02 lakhs (directed to be deposited by the Chief Commissioner in his order dated May 9, 1985) was arrived at. Be that as it may, they failed to comply with the order of the Chief Commissioner, with the result that the second review petition filed by them also stood dismissed. The respondents then filed yet another petition, styling it as a mercy petition, before the advisor to the Administrator which too was dismissed.
5. On December 3, 1990, the respondents started yet another round by filing W.P. No. 15477 of 1990 in the High Court of Punjab Haryana offering to pay the amount aforesaid with 12% interest. The High Court recorded the respondents offer and directed them to bring a draft for the full amount on the next day of the hearing. The respondents produced a draft in a sum of Rs. 1,72,402.56 P. before the court on January 15, 1991 which was kept in safe custody of the Registrar. The writ petition was, however, dismissed on March 18, 1991 holding that since the respondents were persistent defaulters and also because the prices of plots have gone up steeply meanwhile, the plot cannot be restored to them. A review petition filed by the respondents was dismissed by the court on July 29, 1991.
6. Having failed in the High Court, the respondents approached the Estate Officer yet again to settle their case in the light of an alleged policy of the Government to restore the plots to defaulters by charging forfeiture amount of 5%. This request was rejected by the Estate Officer on October 18, 1991. After all this, the respondents approached the High Court o
