B.S.CHAUHAN, G.S.SINGHVI
NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association – Appellant
Versus
NOIDA – Respondent
On a standard of preponderance of probabilities, the material on record, including the findings of the Chairman, Board of Revenue as affirmed by the K.T. Thomas Commission, establishes serious irregularities and misconduct by Shri Ravi Mathur, IAS (respondent no.4), during his tenure as CEO of NOIDA and Greater NOIDA. (!) [1000508160008] Specifically, contracts worth over Rs.10 crores were awarded to select contractors like M/s. Anil Kumar & Co., M/s. Techno Construction Co., J.K. Jain, and M/s. Fair Deal Engineers without inviting tenders, justified on untenable grounds of urgency that lacked substantiation, with file notes appearing tailor-made and procedures flouted. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Further, in respect of his personal plot allotments and conversions (from Sector 35 to Sector 27, then to Sector 44), conversion charges were paid only once despite two distinct conversions yielding better location and size, in potential violation of prevailing office orders, facilitated by a suspicious modification to available plot lists during his tenure as CEO. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) Additionally, the change of user of a 13-hectare City Park (near Sectors 24, 33, 35) to residential Sector 32 with 200 plots was effected without following statutory procedures under Regulations 1991, without Board approval or Master Plan amendment, and development works awarded sans tenders. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) These actions reflect arbitrariness, haste presuming mala fides, colourable exercise of power, and breach of public trust doctrine, causing procedural and potential pecuniary harm to the Authority despite no direct quantified loss. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) While disciplinary proceedings are time-barred under applicable rules, (!) the gravity warrants criminal investigation under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Sections 13(1)(c), (d)), as no limitation applies for offences punishable over 3 years' imprisonment and delay is condonable. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Judgment :
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. The Legislature of Uttar Pradesh enacted the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, (hereinafter referred to as `Act 1976') for the purpose of proper planning and development of industrial and residential units and to acquire and develop the land for the same. The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority'), has been constituted under the said Act, 1976. The object of the Act had been that genuine and deserving entrepreneurs may be provided industrial and residential plots and other necessary amenities and facilities. Thus, in order to carry out the aforesaid object, a new township came into existence. All the activities in the Authority had to be regulated in strict adherence to all the statutory provisions contained in relevant Acts, Rules and Regulations framed for this purpose. However, from the very inception of the township, there has always been a public hue and cry that officials responsible for managing the Authority are guilty of manipulation, nepotism and corruption. Wild and serious allegations of a very high magnitude had been leveled against some of the officials carrying out the respons
Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji
Sirsi Municipality v. Ceceila Kom Francis Tellis
The State of Punjab & Anr. v. Gurdial Singh & Ors.
The Collector (Distt. Magistrate) Allahabad & Anr. v. Raja Ram Jaiswal
Delhi Administration (Now NCT of Delhi) v. Manohar Lal
N.D. Jayal & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
M/s. Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Anr.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India & Ors.
Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther v. Kerala Financial Corporation
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu & Ors.
Zenit Mataplast Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Bahadursinh Lakhubhai Gohil v. Jagdishbhai M. Kamalia & Ors.
Dr. S.P. Kapoor v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.
Swantraj & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry v. ACER India Ltd.
Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. v. Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.
Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh & Anr.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.