2006 (4) TMI 577 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Difference of opinion between judges.
2. Maintainability of the writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
3. Directions for corrective steps regarding the allotment of land.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Difference of Opinion Between Judges:
The judgment addresses the application filed under Rule 31 of Chapter 4(F) of the High Court Rules and Orders, read with Clause 26 of the Letters Patent, due to differing views expressed by the judges in C.W.P. No. 6196 of 2004. The application highlighted the conflict between the main order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and the order passed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. Binod Kumar Roy. The main points of difference were outlined in paragraphs 2 to 4 of the application, reflecting divergent opinions on the public-spirited nature of the petitioner and the corrective steps regarding the land allotment. The court analyzed similar precedents, such as Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Amar Pal Singh v. Election Commission of India, and Mt. Sardar Bibi v. Haq. Nawaz Khan, to understand the legal framework for resolving such differences.

2. Maintainability of the Writ Petition as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
The applicants raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner was not a genuine public-spirited person and lacked bona fides. They cited various judgments, including Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal and Janta Dal v. H.S. Chaudhary, to support their claim that the petition was filed with ulterior motives. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, in his main order, acknowledged the public importance of the issues raised but expressed difficulty in holding the petitioner as a public-spirited person. However, he did not dismiss the petition on this ground. Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. Binod Kumar Roy, in his order, found the petition to be a true PIL, emphasizing the public interest involved and rejecting the preliminary objections. Both judges, despite different reasoning, concluded that the petition was maintainable.

3. Directions for Corrective Steps Regarding the Allotment of Land:
The main order by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant directed the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh, to take necessary corrective steps within two months, ensuring that the allotment process conformed to Article 14 of the Constitution. He suggested inviting applications through a public notice and allowing all prospective allottees, including the respondent institute, to participate. Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. Binod Kumar Roy, in his order, specified that the allotment should be made through auction, emphasizing transparency and fairness. Despite different expressions, both judges aimed to ensure a fair and transparent process for reallotting the land. The court concluded that there was no legal point of difference in the directions issued by the two judges, as both orders ultimately aligned with the constitutional philosophy of fairness and transparency.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the applications filed under Rule 31 of Chapter 4(F) of the High Court Rules and Orders, read with Clause 26 of the Letters Patent, as there was no substantial point of difference in the final directions issued by the judges. Consequently, both applications were dismissed.