2003 (10) TMI 655 - SC - Indian Laws

Lease-cum-sale agreement - Locus Standi - Judicial Review of Policy Decisions - Validity of Allotment Process and Pricing - Allegations of Mala Fide and Legal Malice - HELD THAT - It is a well-settled principle of law that different considerations arises for the purpose of fixation of price in respect of price of land i.e. for a small area vis-a-vis a large area. The allotment price was ₹ 3,73,324/- per acre which, having regard to the policy decision of the State as also the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary warranting interference by the Court. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that normally allotment of such industrial plots should be done in terms of Regulation 7 aforementioned. But the same by itself did not preclude the authorities of the Board and the State having regard to the fact situation obtaining herein to take recourse to Regulation 13. Once the Court finds that the power exercised by the statutory authorities can be traced to a provision of statute, unless and until violation of mandatory provisions thereof are found out and/ or it is held that a decision is taken for unauthorised or illegal purpose, the court will not ordinarily interfere either with the policy decision or any decision taken by the executive authorities pursuant to or in furtherance thereof. Malice in common law or acceptance means ill will against a person, but in legal sense means a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse. CONCLUSIONS In the facts and circumstances, we do not find that the Board and the State had committed any illegality which could have been a subject matter of judicial review. The High Court in our opinion committed a manifest error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the delay in this case had defeated equity. The allotment was made in the year 1995. The writ application was filed after one year. By that time the Company had not only took possession of the land but also made sufficient investment. Delay of this nature shall have been considered by the High Court to be of vital importance. Furthermore, the High Court ought to have taken into consideration the factum of resistance in the matter from those persons whose lands have been acquired. Only because the lands are vested in the State upon acquisition thereof, the same by itself would not mean that the persons whose lands were acquired were not interested in getting the allotment. The locus standi of the respondent ought to have been taken into consideration having regard to the specific pleas raised in this behalf by the appellants herein. The question as to whether any undue haste has been shown in taking an administrative decision is essentially a question of fact. The state had devolved a policy of Single Window System with a view to get rid of red- tapism generally prevailing in the bureaucracy. A decision which has been taken after due deliberations and upon due application of mind cannot be held to be suffering from malice in law on the ground that there had been undue haste on the part of the State and the Board. Thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. These appeals are allowed. No costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Locus Standi of the Respondents
2. Validity of Allotment Process and Pricing
3. Allegations of Mala Fide and Legal Malice
4. Judicial Review of Policy Decisions
5. Delay and Laches in Filing the Writ Petition

Summary:

1. Locus Standi of the Respondents:
The Board contended that the respondents had no locus standi to maintain the writ petition as the legal rights of the general public had not been infringed. The High Court failed to consider the specific pleas raised by the appellants regarding the locus standi of the respondents, who were alleged to be set up by those whose lands had been acquired.

2. Validity of Allotment Process and Pricing:
The respondents challenged the allotment of land to the Company on several grounds, including breach of statutory purposes, arbitrary and unreasonable allotment, and non-invitation of applications. The High Court quashed the allotment of land exceeding 30 acres utilized by the Company and directed the Board to recover possession of the remaining land, form industrial plots, and allot them after notifying and inviting applications. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in its judgment by not considering the statutory provisions and the policy decision of the State. The allotment price of Rs. 3,73,324/- per acre was not deemed arbitrary given the policy decision and circumstances.

3. Allegations of Mala Fide and Legal Malice:
The respondents alleged that the exercise of power by the Board was mala fide and suffered from legal malice. The Supreme Court held that no malice of fact was alleged in the case, and the High Court's judgment based on undue haste and price fixation lacked merit. The Court emphasized that the decision-making process, not the merit of the decision, should be scrutinized, and in the absence of legal malice, the allotment could not be interfered with.

4. Judicial Review of Policy Decisions:
The Supreme Court reiterated that judicial review should not extend to the merits of policy decisions unless there is a violation of mandatory provisions or the decision is taken for unauthorized or illegal purposes. The High Court's intervention in the policy decision of the State and the Board was deemed inappropriate as the decision-making process involved due deliberations and application of mind.

5. Delay and Laches in Filing the Writ Petition:
The Supreme Court noted that the writ petition was filed after a significant delay of one year, during which the Company had taken possession of the land and made substantial investments. The High Court failed to consider the delay and its impact on equity. The delay was considered vital, and the High Court's oversight in this regard was a manifest error.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, emphasizing the importance of considering statutory provisions, policy decisions, and the decision-making process. The appeals were allowed, and no costs were awarded.