Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manorama Solanki vs Indore Development Authority & Ors. on 13 December, 2017
Author: Rohit Arya
Bench: Rohit Arya
1 W.P.No.8741/2009
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
Writ Petition No. 8741 of 2009
Manorama Solanki
Vs.
Indore Development Authority and others
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.K.Sethi, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Prateek
Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Vinita Phaye, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and
2.
Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned counsel for the respondent
No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whether Approved for reporting: Yes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Laid down:
(1) Allotment of plot with concluded contract cannot be reopened
after gap of about 18 years under the pretext of revised policy
(2) Pricing policy including revision thereof though vests with the
IDA, it must be exercised fairly, reasonably and upon due
consideration of relevant factors and the application thereof
must also be in conformity with the concept and principles of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(3) Significant paragraphs : 16 to 27
Petition Allowed
______
Reserved on: 09/11/2017
ORDER
(13/12/2017) Rohit Arya, J This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against cancellation of allotment of commercial plot No.S/92, Sector 'A" under Scheme 71, Mechanic Nagar, Indore (For short, 'the plot in question') vide order dated 08/05/2008 (Annexure P/20) by the Indore Development Authority, Indore with further direction for allotment of the plot in favour of the petitioner.
2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this writ petition are to the effect that initially one Nandu Singh, husband of the petitioner (died on 30/05/2009) used to carry on business of remolding tyres in the name and style of "Laxmi Tyre Service"
since the year 1956 at Rajmohalla, Indore. The Indore 2 W.P.No.8741/2009 Development Authority (for short 'the IDA') framed a scheme No.71 for the purpose of shifting various businessmen engaged in the business of automobiles at Rajmohalla, Indore. The IDA promised Nandu Singh and all such similarly situated persons for allotment of suitable plots under the said scheme. Plot No.92/S was allotted to Nandu Singh vide order dated 23/03/1988 having an area of 231.90 sq.mtrs., Copy of allotment order is on record as Annexure P/1. In terms of allotment letter, he had deposited an amount of Rs.10,147/- on 12/04/1988 and thereafter further amount of Rs.27,000/- at the rate of Rs.1,156/- per month upto 02/08/1990, the details of payments and copies of receipts are on record as Annexure P/2. Thereafter, an agreement was entered into between Nandu Singh and IDA vide Annexure P/3 containing the reciprocal rights and obligations of the parties. The possession of plot No.S-92 was delivered to Nandu Singh on 08/07/1988 (paragraph 5.6 of the writ petition).
3. It appears that an order dated 05/10/1990 (Annexure P/4) was served upon Nandu Singh giving him to understand that he was not entitled for the plot area of 231.90 sq.mtrs., as per his eligibility and in the alternate, he was called upon to exercise the option for plots of the areas 55 sq.mtrs., 139 sq.mtrs., and 153 sq.mtrs., and also a show cause notice why the allotment of plot in question be not cancelled.
4. Questioning the legality, validity and propriety of the aforesaid order dated 05/10/1990, Nandu Singh had filed M.P.No.1196 of 1993 and this Court by way of interim measure on 03/06/1993 restrained the IDA thereby protected the possession of the petitioner. The said writ petition was finally disposed of by this Court on 18/12/1996 (Annexure P/8). While quashing the impugned order dated 05/10/1990, this Court granted liberty to the IDA to take proper decision afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The interim order dated 03/061993 was ordered to remain in operation till fresh decision was rendered and further liberty was granted to the petitioner to agitate the matter before the appropriate forum if the order passed by the IDA adversely affects his interest. It appears that for almost three years, no action was taken by the IDA against Nandu Singh and suddenly, on 21/09/1999, a notice 3 W.P.No.8741/2009 (Annexure P/9) was served upon him whereunder he was given to understand that in compliance of the High Court's order (supra), the inspection was done by the Executive Engineer in his presence (Nandu Singh). He was found in possession of 53.32 sq.mtrs., and, therefore, he was held not entitled for the plot of an area of 231.90 sq.mtrs., therefore, again called upon to exercise the option as indicated above. In continuation thereof, vide communication dated 14/01/2000 (Annexure P/11), notice was issued to Nandu Singh to remain present before the Chief Executive Officer on 17/01/2000. He appeared and on 18/01/2000 (Annexure P/12) submitted a detailed reply further reiterating that the plot in question was allotted to him vide allotment order dated 23/03/1988 having an area of 231.90 sq.mtrs., with lease rent of Rs.900/- per year and the price of plot fixed at Rs.44,989/- and thereafter agreement was executed on 12/04/1988 and also delivered the possession vide order dated 08/07/1988 as well as paid the entire consideration amount. Hence, Nandu Singh contended that he is in possession as lawful lessee having been delivered possession of the plot in question. He further submitted that his lease is neither cancelled nor the agreement is repudiated. Now at a distance of time of 11 years, the proposal for cancellation of the allotment and exercise of option for smaller plots is ex facie illegal and unsustainable. While justifying the allotment of the plot in question, he has also explained the nature of business being run, i.e., tyre remolding for which installation of various machines requiring larger area. As such, the offer for allotment of lesser area of the plot looking to the requirement of the the business is not viable and to his grave prejudice. With the aforesaid submissions, Nandu Singh sought for recalling the communication dated 21/09/1999. Thereafter, nothing was done for two years by the IDA. The IDA vide communication dated 01/11/2002 (Annexure P/13) sought to return the money deposited by Nandu Singh pursuant to the allotment of plot in question. Nandu Singh refused to accept the amount and returned the cheque back to IDA. Thereafter, on 01/11/2003, the petitioner was called upon to deposit the revised premium purportedly pursuant to the resolution 306 dated 19/08/2003 of the Board of IDA to deposit the total premium amount to the tune 4 W.P.No.8741/2009 of Rs.4,75,890/- by determining the first year lease rate at Rs.9,518/- with further direction that an amount of Rs.2,37,945/- be deposited within thirty days and the remaining 50% within three years in twelve annual installments alongwith 12% interest. In default of payment of the aforesaid amount within thirty days, the proposal/offer shall collapse and no further correspondence shall be entertained.
5. Nandu Singh questioned the legality, validity and propriety of the aforesaid communication dated 01/11/2003 by filing W.P.No.168 of 2004 and this Court on 20/02/2006 disposed of the same, the relevant and operative portion whereof reads as under:
"3. From perusal of the order Annexure P/13 it appears that after filing up the blanks the demand has been raised. Further, compliance of the earlier order passed by this court has not been made. In Annexure P/9 also it is mentioned that inspection has been made which has been seriously disputed by the petitioner vide Annexure P/10. It is also not clear that how the respondent had come to the conclusion that petitioner is eligible only for 53.32 sp.mts of land and in what circumstances agreement (Annexure P/3) was executed for 231.90 sp. Mts.
4. In view of this respondents are directed to issue fresh notice to the petitioner clarifying the entitlement of the petitioner and on the basis of his entitlement, if such, notice is given then the petitioner, respondent shall be at liberty to raise the demand by passing a reasoned order. Till then no recovery shall be made on the basis of notice Annexure P/14."
6. Thereafter, nothing was communicated and suddenly, a notice was issued on 14/07/2006 (Annexure P/16) reiterating the same demand and justification for revised premium and the annual lease rent whereunder it was stated the spot inspection of the place of business was conducted in the presence of Nandu Singh on 09/06/1999 and it was found that he was in occupation of the shop admeasuring 55.32 sq.mtrs., Thereafter, spot inspection was conducted on 23/12/2004 and 16/03/2005 and he was not found to be running the business. Hence, he is not entitled for allotment of plot in question. Moreover, he is entitled for plot of an area of 54 sq.mtrs., Since, he has insisted for an area of 231.90 sq.mtrs., of plot No.S/92, therefore, the Board vide 5 W.P.No.8741/2009 resolution No.306 dated 19/08/2003 has taken a policy decision that different rates for different areas of plots, viz., for plots admeasuring 54 sq.mtrs., at the rate of Rs.1,346/- per sq.mtr., and in excess thereof, as per guidelines of the year 2003-04, at the rate of Rs.2,500/- the premium and the lease rent was required to be paid in terms of communication No.13388 dated 04/11/2003 within thirty days but you failed to deposit the said amount. Accordingly, the allotment order has been cancelled.
It is further mentioned that under scheme No.71 with the concurrence of Westzone Automobile Workers Association in the year 1988, the plots were allotted at the rate of Rs.194/- per sq.mtr., But, now under scheme No.71, sector 'A' for mechanic works, the rates as per guidelines in the year 2006-07 are fixed at Rs.4,000/- sq.mtr., and through tender/auction, the plot was allotted at the rate of Rs.5,611/- per sq.mtr., whereas you are demanding the allotment at the rate of Rs.194/- sq.mtr., Now as per the directives of the State Government, no property can be allotted below the guidelines prescribed. Under these circumstances and pursuant to the order passed by the High Court on 20/02/2006, you may submit your reply in the context of revival of your allotment within fifteen days.
7. Nandu Singh filed a detailed reply and submitted that neither there is any criteria or justification to assert that he was not entitled for allotment of the plot in question for the reason that in Rajmohalla, he was doing business in an area of 55 sq.mtrs., as many persons engaged in automobile business in Rajmohalla area having shops of 10 x 10 sq.ft., 10 x 15 sq.feet and 8 x 10 sq.feet have been allotted plots of the area of 1800 sq., feet, 4000 sq.feet and 1600 sq.feet, respectively. The details of names of such persons have also been mentioned. As such, the alleged self-styled standard of the IDA is only to deny the plot already allotted to him for doing his business. That apart, it is also submitted that the shop in Rajmohalla where he ran the business was of the ownership of one Chameli Bai widow of Narayanprasad. In eviction proceedings, the petitioner was required to vacate the same and thereafter, he shifted his business to 6-A, Sirpur - Dhar Road, Indore. This fact was apprised to the authorities during survey on 16/03/2005 and the 6 W.P.No.8741/2009 same was recorded in the note sheet as regards his new place of business.
It is further reiterated that the plot in question was allotted to him on 23/03/1988 at the rate of Rs.194/- per sq.mtr.,and thereafter agreement was entered into between him and the IDA. He has deposited the entire amount and possession of the plot in question was delivered to him in the year 1988. As such, the allotment is final. Under such circumstances, at a distance of about 15 years, the premium and the lease rent cannot be revised as indicated in the communication dated 01/11/2003 (Annexure P/14) and reiterated on 14/07/2006 (Annexure P/16). The action is wholly arbitrary and illegal.
8. It appears that IDA did not respond to the representation of Nandu Singh on merits and reiterated its stand as indicated above while cancelling the allotment by the impugned order dated 08/05/2008 which is the impugned order in this writ petition.
9. Thereafter, on 27/12/2008, an advertisement was issued in the daily news paper, Dainik Bhaskar calling for tender in respect of plot in question. On 06/04/2009, the tender of respondent No.3 was accepted by the IDA.
10. This writ petition has been filed on 25/11/2009 challenging the cancellation order of the plot in question and the impugned advertisement with further direction to allot the plot in favour of the petitioner and to grant such other reliefs this Court deems fit and proper.
11. This Court on 09/12/2009 while issuing notice on admission has granted the interim relief to the following effect:
"Until further orders status quo with respect to possession of petitioner on land shall be maintained."
12. The respondents/IDA filed counter-affidavit inter alia contending that after allotment of the plot in question to Nandu Singh for mechanical business as a measure of resettlement under policy decision to help facilitate traffic movement in Rajmohalla area, complaints were received that businessmen running business in small shops have been allotted large areas and, therefore, spot inspection was conducted and by resolution No.37 dated 15/02/1990, a committee was constituted and upon submission of survey report, the earlier allotments were cancelled 7 W.P.No.8741/2009 and the businessmen earlier doing business in Rajmohalla area have been classified into three categories and accordingly fixed the area for allotment of plots. Vide communication No.351/B/Sampad/90 dated 05/10/1990, the petitioner was directed to exercise the option for an area, viz., 55 sq.mtrs., 139 sq. mtrs., and 153 sq.mtrs., Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued on 23/03/1993 and the same offer was reiterated on 05/05/1993. Thereafter, two writ petitions were filed by the businessmen of Rajmohalla area, viz., M.P.No.165 of 1991 including the petitioner M.P.No.1196/1993. Pursuant to the order passed by the High Court on 18/12/1996, survey was conducted on 17/12/2004 at Rajmohalla area and Nandu Singh was not found doing business. Accordingly, panchnama was prepared on 17/12/2004. Thereafter, another extensive survey was conducted on 18/03/2005 and it was found that the petitioner's husband and other allottees had made an incorrect statement as regards their business at Rajmohalla area. Thereafter, some businessmen had filed W.P.No.1218 of 2004 and the same was disposed of by this Court on 13/04/2007 and in compliance of the directions thereof, allottees were again afforded opportunity of hearing before the committee and upon close scrutiny of their claims, the committee had submitted the report with a recommendation that 43 allottees; including Nandu Singh were not found entitled for allotment of plots under scheme No.71 (Annexure R/5) and the said recommendation was placed before the Board which in its meeting on 07/03/2008 vide resolution No.41, accepted the report (Annexure R/7). Pursuant whereof vide communication No.4441 dt.08/05/2008, Nandu Singh was informed of cancellation of the allotment. Thereafter, tenders were invited for allotment of the plot in question. After acceptance of bid vide resolution 3042 dated 28/05/2009, the plot in question was allotted to the respondent No.3 (Annexure R/8). Respondent No.3 was informed for delivery of the possession on 03/11/2009 (Annexure R/9) and accordingly, respondent No.3 took possession on 12/11/2009 (Annexure R/10).
13. Respondent No.3 has also filed counter-affidavit and supported the stand of the IDA.
14. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner to the counter-
8 W.P.No.8741/2009affidavits filed by the respondents, it has been contended that the plot in question was allotted to her husband in the year 1988, agreement was entered into between her husband and IDA, deposited the entire consideration and also delivered the possession to her husband on 08/07/1988 and he continues to be in possession. It is denied that possession of the plot was taken from him at any point of time. There is no evidence, muchless, documentary evidence in that behalf on record. The alleged document of taking possession is prepared in the office to justify the claim of respondent No.3. It is also submitted that no survey was ever conducted in the years 2004 and 2005 by the IDA in Rajmohalla area in relation to the existence of running business by various allottees. Besides, in the alleged survey conducted on 16/03/2005, the authority of the IDA itself has made an endorsement in Annexure R/5 that the shop is closed for the last 2/3 years and shifted his business to 6-A, Sirpur-Dhar Road, Indore. It is also submitted that now at a distance of more than 21 years, the contention of IDA that the petitioner was not eligible for allotment is an action smacks of arbitrariness and suffers from vice of patent illegality.
15. Heard.
16. Admittedly, Nandu Singh a proprietor of firm "Laxmi Tyre Service" 27/1, North Rajmohalla, Indore was allotted the plot in question, i.e., S/92 sector "A" scheme No.71 vide letter dated 23/03/1988 admeasuring 231.90 sq., mtr., for a consideration of Rs.44,089/- with lease rent per year Rs.900/- followed by an agreement dated 05/04/1988 pursuant whereto entire consideration amount was paid in terms of allotment letter. The details whereon are on record as Annexures P/1 to P/3 and possession was delivered to him on 08/07/1988 (as pleaded in paragraph 5.6 of the writ petition) and there is no denial of the aforesaid fact in the counter-affidavit filed by the IDA.
17. The communication dated 05/10/1990 alleging ineligibility of Nandu Singh for the plot in question and calling him as to why the said plot be not cancelled with further stipulation to exercise option for a plot of size 55 sq.mtrs., 139 sq.mtrs, and 153 sq.mtrs., with the corresponding prices per sq. mtr., was subject- matter of challenge in M.P.No.1196 of 1993 (supra). This Court 9 W.P.No.8741/2009 vide order dated 18/12/1996 has quashed the aforesaid communication in the light of Division Bench order dated 24/11/1992 passed in W.P.No.110 of 1991 with liberty to the concerning respondent to give proper notice to the petitioner and take a proper decision afresh after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing in that regard.
Further, the ad interim writ issued by this Court on 03/06/1993 as regards maintenance of the status quo in relation to the plot in question was kept operative till fresh decision as was permitted to be taken by the respondents. The petitioner therein was also set at liberty to resort to the appropriate remedy in case orders passed by the respondents turns out to be adverse before the appropriate forum.
18. For almost three years thereafter, no action was taken, however, vide communication dated 21/09/1999 (Annexure P/9), the IDA reiterated the contents of communication dated 05/10/1990 (Annexure P/4) with further allegation that during spot inspection conducted by the Executive Engineer, V.K.Gangwal in the presence of Nandu Singh, he was found in possession of 53.32 sq.mtrs., in Rajmohalla area and, therefore, in purported compliance of the High Court's order (supra), he was called upon to avail the opportunity of hearing. Petitioner has specifically denied in his reply, Annexure P/10 that ever any spot inspection was conducted by the socalled officer in his presence as neither any notice was given to him nor was given an opportunity to remain present there. As such, the allegation as indicated in the impugned communication was factually incorrect. It appears that thereafter, again there was exchange of correspondence between IDA and Nandu Singh for few years and on 01/11/2002 (Annexure P/13), the IDA sought to refund the amount deposited by Nandu Singh alleging that he was not eligible for allotment of plot in question even without cancelling the allotment and taking the possession from him, however, he returned back the amount to IDA. After a gap one year, in terms of resolution No.306 dated 19/08/2003 (Annexure P/14) called upon Nandu Singh again to deposit the revised rates of premium and lease rent as detailed in the communication to the tune of Rs.4,75,890/- and first year lease rent, Rs.9,518/- with various other stipulations contained 10 W.P.No.8741/2009 thereunder.
19. There is nothing on record to suggest the criteria, if any adopted by the IDA for initial allotment of plots under scheme No.71 to the persons engaged in automobile business in Rajmohalla area as a measure of resettlement to justify the declaration of ineligibility of the plot in question after its allotment, acceptance of the premium, lease rent and payment of full consideration as well as delivery of possession in favour of Nandu Singh. The aforesaid aspect assumes importance in the teeth of the fact that number of persons having their business in Rajmohalla area in small shops of 10 x 10 sq.feet, 10 x 15 and 8 x 10 sq.feet were allotted 2500 sq.feet, 1800 sq. feet, 4000 sq.fet, 1600 sq.feet as sated with particulars of details by Nandu Singh in his reply dated 18/08/2006 to the notice dated 14/07/2006 and there is no denial of the aforesaid fact in the subsequent communications by the IDA. There is also no rational or justification calling upon Nandu Singh to submit a revised premium and lease rent as indicated in the communication dated 01/11/2003 reopening the concluded contract in the year 1988 with allotment and deposit of premium and lease rent followed by delivery of possession which is not permissible in law. This Court while testing the legality, validity and propriety of the aforesaid communication at the instance of Nandu Singh in W.P.No.168 of 2004 (supra) has rightly observed that there was nothing on record to hold Nandu Singh eligible only for 55 sq.mtrs.,
20. The purported compliance of the Court order in its communication dated 14/07/2006 (Annexure P./16), the IDA has reiterated the same facts which were stated in the communications dated 05/10/1990 (Annexure P/4), 21/09/1999 (Annexure P/9) and 01/11/2003 (Annexure P/14) but has not complied with the directions issued by this Court to disclose the criteria to ascertain entitlement of plot in question under scheme No.71 in favour of Nandu Singh. There is no such policy on record providing for criteria that only that much of the area of plot shall be allotted to a person if he has business premises of the same area or in determined proportion/rates, in Rajmohalla for doing his business under scheme No.71. There is also no explanation as to on what basis the allotments were made to 11 W.P.No.8741/2009 various businessmen as specifically stated with instances in the reply dated 18/08/2006 (Annexure P/17) filed by Nandu Singh as regards allotment of large area than they have at Rajmohalla area.
21. That apart, there is also no justification as to why the petitioner/Nandu Singh was called upon to pay the revised premium and lease rent as per the Government policy that too at a distance of time of 18 years (from the year 1988 to 2006). Mere resolution of IDA in that behalf is not in consonance with the concept of principles of reasonableness in the case of Nandu Singh/petitioner. Once, he has been allotted the plot in question, agreement was executed, paid the premium and lease rent and the possession was also delivered, in the opinion of this Court, Nandu Singh could not have been called upon to pay the revised premium and lease rent for want of any authority of law applying Wednesbury principles of reasonableness. As such, IDA is held to be estopped from raising such arbitrary demand from Nandu Singh/petitioner.
22. The IDA; an authority constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 definitely may lay down the pricing policy for allotment of plots. Nevertheless, it is expected to act fairly, reasonably and upon relevant considerations either while determining the price of the plot or revising the price subject to conditions stipulated in the instrument, be it an agreement to sell or allotment of plots. It cannot play fast and loose with its authority while subjecting the allottees to revised rates of plots. It cannot act discriminatory. It is a well recognized policy underlying the tax law that the State has a wide discretion in selecting the persons or objects and not others. It is only when within the range of its selection that law operates unequally and not qualifying the reasonable test of classification; it may become vulnerable being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (AIR 1962 SC 1733, East India Tobacco Company Vs. State of A.P., referred to). Therefore, once Nandu Singh alogwith other allottees irrespective of the size of the shops ran business in Rajmohalla area were allotted plots of different dimensions and fixed the premium and lease rent, singling out Nandu Singh to revised premium and lease rent at a 12 W.P.No.8741/2009 distance of time of 18 years, Article 14 of the Constitution of India frawns upon such action as the same is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the concept of Wednesbury principles of reasonableness.
23. The principle underlying legitimate expectation which is based on Article 14 and the rule of fairness has been restated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. CTO, (2005) 1 SCC 625. It was observed in paras 9:
"9. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammelled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non- arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for discernible reasons, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualised than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness."
(emphasis supplied)"
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and others vs. Kalyanpur Cement Limited, (2010) 3 SCC 274. in paras 79 of its judgment has observed as under:-
"79. We are also unable to accept the submission that the decisions dated 6-1-2001 and 5-3-2001 had been taken due to the change in the national policy. This was sought to be justified by Dr. Dhavan on the basis of the Conferences of Chief Ministers/Finance Ministers. It is settled law as noticed by Bhagwati, J. in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of UP, (1979) 2 SCC 409 :
1979 SCC (Tax) 144 that the Government cannot claim to be exempt from the liability to carry out the promise on some indefinite and undisclosed ground of necessity or expediency. The Government is required to place before the Court the entire material on account of which it claims to be exempt from 13 W.P.No.8741/2009 liability. Thereafter, it would be for the Court to decide whether those facts and circumstances are such as to render it inequitable to enforce the liability against the Government. Mere claim of change of policy would not be sufficient to exonerate the Government from liability. It is only when the Court is satisfied that the Court would decline to enforce the promise against the Government. However, the burden would be upon the Government to show that it would be inequitable to hold the Government bound by the promise. The Court would insist a highly rigorous standard of proof in the discharge of this burden.
(Emphasis supplied)
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court while addressing on Fundamental Policy of the Indian Law in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Western GECO International Limited, (2014) 9 SCC 263 has laid emphasis upon the safeguards for observance of principle of natural justice by Courts, Tribunals or quashi judicial authorities and judicial approach exercising powers that affect rights or obligation of the parties and observance of fair, reasonable and objectivity in decision making process on touchstone of Wednesbury principle and in para 39 of the judgment has observed as under:-
"39. No less important is the principle now recognised as a salutary juristic fundamental in administrative law that a decision which is perverse or so irrational that no reasonable person would have arrived at the same will not be sustained in a court of law. Perversity or irrationality of decisions is tested on the touchstone of Wednesbury principle, Associated Provincial Picture House Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223: (1947) 2 AII ER 680 (CA) of reasonableness. Decisions that fall short of the standards of reasonableness are open to challenge in a court of law often in writ jurisdiction of the superior courts but no less in statutory processes whereever the same are available."
26. Further, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that it is well evident from paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit in the context of disentitlement of Nand Singh for allotment of plot is justified on the basis of survey conducted on 17/12/2004 in purported compliance of this Court's order dated 18/12/1996 rendered in W.P.No.1196/1993 (after 08 years) alleging that the petitioner's husband was not found to be running his business in Rajmohalla area despite, the IDA having recorded a fact in its proceedings 14 W.P.No.8741/2009 that in the preceding 2/3 years, Nandu Singh has shifted his business premises from Rajmohalla area to 6-A, Sirpur - Dhar Road (Annexure R/4 - page 101) as a result this Court finds cancellation of the allotment by the impugned communication dated 08/05/2008 (Annexure P/20) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, subsequent action of the IDA inviting applications for allotment again of the plot in question, acceptance of bid of respondent No.3 of the plot in question are held to be of no consequence. Respondent No.3 is always free to take recourse to law against IDA for recovery of the amount paid, if any. It is considered necessary to observe that delivery of possession of the plot in question was given to Nandu Singh in the year 1988, there is no evidence on record that the possession was either handed over by Nandu Singh or the possession was taken by IDA at any point of time, till now. Under such circumstances, the assertion of IDA and respondent No.3 based on Annexures R/9 and R/10 (notice to respondent No.3 for possession and delivery of possession respectively) are mere paper formalities. They do not bear the signature of Nandu Singh as an acknowledgment of delivery of possession. Accordingly, Nandu Singh is found to be in continuous possession till his death on 30/05/2009 and thereafter, his widow, Manorama Solanki.
27. The upshot of the discussion results in success of the writ petition. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 08/05/2008 (Annexure P/20) and the subsequent action of IDA are hereby quashed.
No order as to costs.
(Rohit Arya)
b/- Judge
13-12-2017
MVR Digitally signed by M V R BALAJI SARMA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH INDORE, postalCode=452001,
st=Madhya Pradesh,
BALAJI 2.5.4.20=dfd648b7a72175dda734ea3f09b63
7e5485763880c50c1966cbd24d7e7cdfee0,
2.5.4.45=032100257F82CA97352F5A6F6E270 SARMA FAFC6A036F71F4CF934D7DC3C1F18C32944 0EAAEB, cn=M V R BALAJI SARMA Date: 2017.12.13 16:17:45 +05'30'