9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the agreement between Mahapalika and M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. 2. Violation of statutory provisions. 3. Public interest and environmental concerns. 4. Validity of the decision-making process of Mahapalika. 5. Estoppel against Mahapalika. Summary: 1. Legality of the Agreement: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that the agreement dated November 4, 1993, between Mahapalika and M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. for constructing an underground shopping complex was illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The agreement was deemed a "fraud on power" as it favored the builder excessively and was executed without proper authority and adherence to statutory requirements. 2. Violation of Statutory Provisions: The agreement and subsequent construction violated the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, the U.P. Regulation of Buildings Operations Act, 1958, the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and the Uttar Pradesh Parks, Playgrounds and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1975. The Mahapalika failed to follow the mandatory procedures for holding meetings, executing contracts, and obtaining necessary sanctions from the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA). 3. Public Interest and Environmental Concerns: The park in question, Jhandewala Park, was of historical importance and necessary for maintaining the environmental balance in the congested Aminabad market area. The construction of the underground shopping complex was found to exacerbate congestion rather than alleviate it, thus defeating the alleged public purpose. The Supreme Court emphasized the "public trust doctrine," stating that the Mahapalika, as a trustee of the park, could not alienate or convert it for commercial use. 4. Validity of the Decision-Making Process: The decision to construct the underground shopping complex lacked proper study, project reports, and feasibility assessments. The Mahapalika's meetings did not follow the prescribed notice and agenda requirements, rendering the resolutions invalid. The constitution of the High Power Committee and its delegation of powers were also illegal. 5. Estoppel Against Mahapalika: The Supreme Court rejected the contention of estoppel against Mahapalika, stating that a public body could change its stance if the earlier decision was contrary to law. The Mahapalika's change of position, supported by the State Government and LDA, was justified given the illegalities involved in the agreement and construction. Conclusion: The Supreme Court directed the dismantling of the underground shopping complex, except for one block to be used for parking, and ordered the restoration of the park within 12 months. The appeals were dismissed with costs, emphasizing that judicial discretion should not perpetuate illegality.
|
