1985 (11) TMI 231 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Public Interest Litigation and its nature.
2. Validity of the change of user of the plot.
3. Res judicata applicability.
4. Allegations of mala fides and undervaluation.
5. Compliance with Building Regulation No. 3.

Summary:

1. Public Interest Litigation and its nature:
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of public interest litigation (PIL), noting its role in addressing the violation of constitutional or legal rights of disadvantaged groups. The Court referenced its previous ruling in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, which established that any member of the public could maintain an application for judicial redress in cases of legal wrongs affecting a determinate class of persons unable to approach the Court due to various disadvantages.

2. Validity of the change of user of the plot:
The case arose from a dispute over the use of a plot reserved for a bus depot by the Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST). The plot was partially used for commercial purposes, which was challenged. The Supreme Court found that the commercial use of a small portion of the plot, which substantially augmented the Corporation's coffers, did not violate the intended use of the land. The primary purpose of the plot remained intact, and the additional use was justified to support public interests.

3. Res judicata applicability:
The High Court's ruling that the present writ petition was not barred by res judicata was upheld. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's finding that the previous writ petition filed by Thakkar was not bona fide, as it was influenced by a disgruntled builder. This finding excluded the application of s.11 C.P.C. in the present case, allowing the current petition to proceed.

4. Allegations of mala fides and undervaluation:
The Supreme Court rejected the allegations of mala fides and undervaluation. The Court noted that the tender process was transparent, with advertisements published in major newspapers and tenders invited from well-known builders. The acceptance of the highest bid from Forward Construction Co. was found to be in order. The Court also dismissed the claim that the transaction was outside the Bombay Corporation Act, affirming that the Corporation's actions were within its powers to promote public safety, health, and convenience.

5. Compliance with Building Regulation No. 3:
The High Court had allowed the writ petition based on Building Regulation No. 3, which required modification of the development plan for any change of user. The Supreme Court, however, interpreted the term "change" to mean a substantial alteration. Since the primary use of the plot as a bus depot remained, with only a minor commercial addition, the Court held that the proviso to Building Regulation No. 3 did not apply. The Court also noted that this plea was introduced late in the proceedings, without giving the appellants an opportunity to rebut.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. The special leave petition filed by Prabhat Mandal and others was dismissed, with parties bearing their own costs.