2014 (9) TMI 1294 - SC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of writ petition filed in the public interest - locus standi of writ Petitioner to file the writ petition - separate but concurring orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court which were concurred by the nominated third Judge are legal and valid or not - allotment order of land made in favour of the Appellant-Institute is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or not. Whether the writ petition filed in the public interest is maintainable or not and whether the writ Petitioner has locus standi to file the writ petition? - HELD THAT - The Respondent No. 1-the writ Petitioner has filed a bonafide writ petition and he has the necessary locus. There is an apparent favour shown by the Union Territory of Chandigarh in favour of the Appellant-Institute which is a profit making company and it has not shown to this Court that the allotment of land in its favour is in accordance with law. Hence we are of the view that there is a strong reason to hold that the writ petition is maintainable in public interest. We completely agree with the views taken by the High Court wherein it has rightly held that the writ petition is a Public Interest Litigation and not a Private Interest Litigation. The writ petition in question is the first petition filed by the first Respondent and his first endeavor to knock the doors of the constitutional court to protect the public interest by issuing a writ of certiorary. The Appellants have miserably failed to show the malafide intention on the part of the Respondent No. 1 in filing writ petition and we agree with the view of the then Chief Justice in his order who has held that he is a public spirited person - The writ petition filed by the first Respondent is maintainable as the allotment of the land in question made in favour of the first Appellant-Institute is arbitrary illegal and the same is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Whether the separate but concurring orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court which were concurred by the nominated third Judge are legal and valid or whether the same requires interference by this Court? - Whether the allotment order of land made in favour of the Appellant-Institute is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India along with the applicability of the Allotment of Land to Educational Institutions (Schools) Rules etc. on a Lease-hold basis in Chandigarh Scheme 1996 ? - HELD THAT - The discretionary power conferred upon the public authorities to carry out the necessary Regulations for allotting land for the purpose of constructing a public educational institution should not be misused - the fundamental right to establish and run an educational institution in terms of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is subject to reasonable restrictions Under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. Therefore the State is within its competence to prohibit commercialization of education . On a careful evaluation of the statutory object behind Clause 18 of the Allotment of Land to Educational Institutions (Schools) Rules Etc. on Lease Hold basis in Chandigarh Scheme 1996 no systematic exercise has been undertaken by the Administration of Chandigarh to identify the needs of different kinds of professional institutions required to be established in Chandigarh - the Screening Committee comprising of senior and responsible functionaries allotted the institutional sites in favour of the allottee without following any objective criteria and policy. There appears to be absolutely no point of difference or divergence between the then Chief justice and the companion puisne Judge who have issued directions to the Administration of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. It has rightly been pointed out by the nominated Judge that there may apparently seem to be a difference in the thought process and also the relative rigour of the expressions used by both the learned Judges yet it has not been possible to conclude that there was any divergence in the directions recorded in their separate views. The impugned order passed by the learned puisne Judge which was concurred by the then Chief Justice by his separate order and the order of the third nominated Judge holding that there is no difference of opinion in the orders of the Division Bench are legal and valid and do not require any interference by this Court. Conclusion - i) The writ petition filed by the first Respondent is maintainable as the allotment of the land in question made in favour of the first Appellant-Institute is arbitrary illegal and the same is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. ii) The impugned order passed by the learned puisne Judge which was concurred by the then Chief Justice by his separate order and the order of the third nominated Judge holding that there is no difference of opinion in the orders of the Division Bench are legal and valid and do not require any interference by this Court. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of this Court s appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

(i) Whether the writ petition filed in public interest is maintainable and whether the writ petitioner has the locus standi to file the writ petition.

(ii) Whether the separate but concurring orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, concurred by the nominated third Judge, are legal and valid or require interference by the Supreme Court.

(iii) Whether the allotment order of land made in favor of the Appellant-Institute violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India along with the applicability of the "Allotment of Land to Educational Institutions (Schools) Rules etc. on a Lease-hold basis in Chandigarh Scheme, 1996."

(iv) What order should be passed by the Supreme Court?

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Maintainability of the Writ Petition and Locus Standi

The Court examined whether the writ petition filed by the respondent was maintainable as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The property in question, being public property managed by the Union Territory of Chandigarh, must be allotted following the procedure to avoid loss to the public exchequer. The Court noted that the petitioner was not a meddlesome interloper and had a bona fide interest in protecting public interest. Citing precedents from Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India and S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, the Court emphasized that any member of the public with sufficient interest can maintain an action for redressal of public wrongs. The Court concluded that the writ petition was maintainable as a PIL, and the petitioner had the necessary locus standi.

Issue (ii): Legality and Validity of the High Court's Orders

The Court reviewed whether the separate but concurring orders of the Division Bench, concurred by the third Judge, were valid. It was argued that the two Judges of the Division Bench had conflicting opinions, but the Court found that the conclusions reached were the same, i.e., the cancellation of the land allotment. The Court held that there was no divergence in the directions issued by the High Court, and thus, the orders were legal and valid, requiring no interference.

Issue (iii): Violation of Article 14 and Applicability of Rules

The Court evaluated whether the allotment of land to the Appellant-Institute violated Article 14 of the Constitution and the relevant rules. The Court referred to precedents like Union of India v. Jain Sabha and New India Public School v. HUDA, highlighting the need for transparency and adherence to public interest in land allotment. The Court found that the allotment was arbitrary, lacked transparency, and did not follow the necessary procedures, thereby violating Article 14. The Court emphasized that public property should not be used for profiteering, and the allotment did not align with the principles of fairness and public interest.

Issue (iv): Final Order

The Court concluded that the appeal lacked merit and upheld the High Court's decision to cancel the allotment. The stay order previously granted was vacated, and the appeal was dismissed.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court preserved crucial legal reasoning, establishing that:

- Public property must be managed transparently, ensuring no loss to the public exchequer.

- Any member of the public with sufficient interest can challenge public wrongs through PIL.

- The discretionary power for land allotment must be exercised with transparency and adherence to public interest, avoiding arbitrary decisions.

- The High Court's orders were consistent and did not require interference, as they aligned with constitutional principles.

The Court's final determination was to dismiss the appeal, maintaining the High Court's cancellation of the land allotment to the Appellant-Institute.