2013 (11) TMI 1572 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the report of the CAG by itself can legally be made the basis for the reliefs claimed in the petition? Whether the decision of the State Government to develop an international finance service city on the basis of a public private partnership model with a social objective could be termed as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism and/or nepotism violating the sole object of equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Whether the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Basis of reliefs claimed on the CAG report.
2. Alleged arbitrariness and favoritism in the State Government's decision.
3. Delay and laches in filing the petition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Basis of Reliefs Claimed on the CAG Report:
The petitioner filed a Public Interest Petition based on the CAG report, seeking a declaration that the State Government's action in allotting land was illegal and void. The Gujarat High Court, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Union of India, noted that while the CAG report commands respect, the merits of the policy objectives of the State Government cannot be questioned by the CAG. The Court emphasized that the CAG is a key figure in parliamentary control of finance, but the administration and utilization of resources are primarily the responsibility of the Government, which is accountable to the people. The Court highlighted that decisions taken in good faith and with good intentions should not be belittled even if they turn out to be wrong.

2. Alleged Arbitrariness and Favoritism in the State Government's Decision:
The petitioner argued that the State Government's decision to develop an International Financial Services City on a public-private partnership (PPP) model was arbitrary, discriminatory, and an act of favoritism, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The Gujarat High Court, after examining the materials on record, concluded that the State Government took a conscious commercial decision after evaluating the pros and cons. The Court found no evidence of extraneous considerations or malafide exercise of powers. The Supreme Court agreed with this assessment, noting that the decision was taken transparently and in public interest, considering the development and employment opportunities the project would bring to the State.

3. Delay and Laches in Filing the Petition:
The Gujarat High Court noted that the writ petition could have been dismissed on the ground of delay, but it still examined the contentions raised by the parties. The Court found that the petition was based on the CAG report, which was scrutinized and responded to by the respective Ministries. The Supreme Court reiterated that criticisms are welcome in a parliamentary democracy, but decisions taken in good faith should not be undermined merely because they are later proven wrong. The Court emphasized that non-floating of tenders or absence of public auction alone does not characterize the action of a public authority as arbitrary or unreasonable.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no reason to entertain the Special Leave Petition, agreeing with the Gujarat High Court's findings that the State Government's decision was a policy decision taken in public interest. The Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the decision was taken transparently, with substantial stake and interests of the State being considered in the PPP model.