9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (5) TMI 1043 - SC - Indian LawsAllotments and conversion of lands made by the NOIDA - personal benefits of the members - commission of criminal offence - The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (the Authority'), has been constituted under the said Act, 1976. The object of the Act had been that genuine and deserving entrepreneurs may be provided industrial and residential plots and other necessary amenities and facilities. All the activities in the Authority had to be regulated in strict adherence to all the statutory provisions contained in relevant Acts, Rules and Regulations framed for this purpose. However, from the very inception of the township, there has always been a public hue and cry that officials responsible for managing the Authority are guilty of manipulation, nepotism and corruption. Wild and serious allegations of a very high magnitude had been leveled against some of the officials carrying out the responsibilities of implementing the Act and other statutory provisions. HELD THAT - it is evident from the record that M/s Anil Kumar Co. had been allotted originally the work on the basis of tender for ₹ 2.75 crores in Sector Gamma' in Greater NOIDA, in connection with the construction of water drains. However, they had been awarded additional work by respondent no. 4, worth ₹ 3.75 crores on a deviation basis . In fact, awarding such work cannot be termed as an addition' or additional work' because the work is worth ₹ 1 crore more than the amount of original contract. In such a fact-situation, even if there had been no financial loss to the Greater NOIDA, indisputably, the additional work for such a huge amount had been awarded without following the procedure prescribed in law. More so, there is nothing on record to show as to whether the said contractor M/s Anil Kumar Co. was eligible to carry out the contract worth ₹ 6.50 crores. Awarding the contract under the garb of so-called extension, amounts to doing something indirectly which may not be permissible to do directly. Admittedly, such a course of action is not permissible in law. The second work had been allotted to M/s Techno Construction Co. worth ₹ 1.00 crore without inviting fresh tenders etc., on the ground that earlier a contract for execution of similar work i.e. construction of road had been awarded to it. In view of the fact that there was no urgency, such a contract should not have been awarded. Undoubtedly, the respondent no.4 is guilty of proceeding in haste and that amounts to arbitrariness. It is evident from the record that the respondent no.4 had originally been allotted plot no.118, Sector-35 measuring 360 sq. meters which was converted to plot no.G-25, Sector-27 measuring 392 sq. meters. However, as the respondent no.4 did not deposit the required charges the said order of conversion stood withdrawn. By subsequent conversion, respondent no.4 got plot no.A-15 in Sector-44. Thus, two conversions had been made on different dates. However, he paid the transfer charges only once to the tune of ₹ 1.80 lacs. It is alleged that by first conversion, the respondent no.4 not only got the plot in a better location, but also a plot of bigger size. Second allotment was further, as alleged, in a far better geographical position. There is nothing on record to show that any amendment had ever been made either in the Master Plan or in the Regulations 1991 before the change of user of land, when a 13 hectare City Park situated near Sectors 24, 33 and 35 was abolished and a new residential Sector 32 was carved out comprising 200 plots. Even if the said change made by respondent no.4 stood nullified, subsequently by respondent no.7, it does not exonerate him from committing an illegality. It is a matter of investigation as to what was the motive for which such a change had been made by respondent no.4, unauthorisedly and illegally. Admittedly he was not competent to do so without seeking the amendments as mentioned hereinabove. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that these allegations being of a very serious nature and as alleged, the respondent no.4 had passed orders in colourable exercise of power favouring himself and certain contractors, require investigation. Thus, in view of the above, we direct the CBI to have preliminary enquiry and in case the allegations are found having some substance warranting further proceeding with criminal prosecution, may proceed in accordance with law.
Issues Involved:
1. Investigation into land allotments and conversions by NOIDA. 2. Guidelines for allotment of lands by NOIDA. 3. Allegations against specific officials, including Mrs. Neera Yadav and Shri Ravi Mathur. 4. Possibility of disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution against Shri Ravi Mathur. Detailed Analysis: 1. Investigation into land allotments and conversions by NOIDA: The petition initially sought numerous reliefs, including allotment of plots to members of the petitioner-Association. However, the Court treated it as a public interest litigation (PIL) for investigating land allotments and conversions by NOIDA over the past ten years. The Court, after reviewing extensive documents, found the allegations serious enough to warrant an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The State of U.P. had already received similar complaints and constituted a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Murtaza Hussain, which found prima facie evidence of irregularities by Mrs. Neera Yadav, IAS. 2. Guidelines for allotment of lands by NOIDA:The Court issued directions to frame guidelines for the allotment of lands by NOIDA to ensure transparency and adherence to statutory provisions. The Court emphasized that all activities in NOIDA must be regulated in strict adherence to relevant Acts, Rules, and Regulations. 3. Allegations against specific officials, including Mrs. Neera Yadav and Shri Ravi Mathur:Mrs. Neera Yadav was investigated by the CBI, leading to her prosecution. Allegations against other officials, including Shri Ravi Mathur, were also considered. The Court noted that Mrs. Neera Yadav had filed an affidavit implicating other officers, including Shri P.K. Mishra, Shri Bijendra Sahay, and Shri Ravi Mathur. The State Government had initiated inquiries against some of these officials, and the Lok-Ayukta had suggested referring the matter to the CBI for further investigation. 4. Possibility of disciplinary proceedings and criminal prosecution against Shri Ravi Mathur:The Court examined whether disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against Shri Ravi Mathur, who had retired and whether his alleged misconduct warranted criminal prosecution. The Court noted that under the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, disciplinary proceedings could not be instituted against a retired official without the Central Government's sanction and only for events within four years before the proceedings. Thus, disciplinary proceedings against Shri Ravi Mathur were not permissible. However, the Court considered the initiation of criminal proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, noting that there is no limitation for offences punishable with more than three years imprisonment. The Court highlighted the gravity of the allegations, including the unauthorized and illegal change of land use, awarding contracts without inviting tenders, and benefiting personally from plot conversions. The Court directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry into these allegations and proceed with criminal prosecution if warranted. Conclusion:The Court concluded that the allegations against Shri Ravi Mathur were serious and required investigation. It directed the CBI to conduct a preliminary enquiry and proceed with criminal prosecution if the allegations were substantiated. The Court emphasized that any observations made in the judgment were necessary for deciding the present controversy and should not influence the CBI's investigation. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
