9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer issued a notice to show cause as to why the lease in their favour be not cancelled. After giving due opportunity to the respondents, the lease was cancelled, at the same time forfeiting a sum of ₹ 3450 representing 10% of the premium. The respondents preferred an appeal to the Chief Administrator against the said action which was dismissed on 2-5-1978. The Chief Administrator, however, reduced, the amount of forfeiture from 10% to 2 1/2%. A revision preferred against the Chief Administrator's order was dismissed by the Chief Commissioner on 1-1-1979. The respondents then applied to the Estate Officer for refund of the amount paid by them. After deducting the amount forfeited, the amount deposited by them was refunded in full on 25-4-1979. 4.Having obtained the refund of their amount, the respondents filed a review petition before the Chief Commissioner seeking review of his order dated 1-1-1979. It was dismissed on 10-1-1980. A second review petition, however, met with success. The Chief Commissioner directed that the plot shall be restored to the respondents provided they make the entire payment within sixty days from the date of his order. He directed that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was dismissed by the High Court, the respondents must also be restored the plot on the same terms. The High Court pointed out that Prakash Rani's matter was settled before the Lok Adalat and the Estate Officer agreed to waive the forfeiture by charging 5% of the premium amount by his orders dated 4-9-1991 but when the respondents' case was taken up by Estate Officer on 1-10- 1989, he rejected the respondents' case, which, says that the High Court, amounts to discriminatory treatment. When it was pointed out by the counsel for the Administration that the case of Prakash Rani was different inasmuch as in that case the amount paid by the allottee was never returned to her as has been done in the case of respondents, the High Court merely brushed aside the argument and allowed the writ petition directing the appellants herein (respondent to the writ petition) to restore the site to the respondents (writ petitioners) inasmuch as they had already paid up the entire amount of auction money including penal interest. The Court observed that if on taking an account, any further amount is found due, a demand can be raised against the respondents according to rules. It is this orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ointed out by the Administration's counsel, viz., that the said lady had never taken back her amount and that her amount was lying with the Administration, is not correct. And yet her case has been made the basis for allowing the respondents' writ petition upholding the plea of discrimination. 8.We are of the opinion that the basis or the principle, if it can be called one, on which the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court is unsustainable in law and indefensible in principle. Since we have come across many such instances, we think it necessary to deal with such pleas at a little length. Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obviou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otherwise. Each case must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles. The orders and actions of the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedents, as understood in the judicial world. (What is the position in the case of orders passed by authorities in exercise of their quasi-judicial power, we express no opinion. That can be dealt with when a proper case arises.) 9.Coming back to the facts of this case, if only the High Court had looked to the facts of this case instead of looking to the facts of some other case, we are sure, it would have dismissed the writ petition in view of the several facts stated hereinbefore. The High Court fell in grave error in allowing the writ petition on the said ground and in importing the theory of discrimination in such a situation. Question of discrimination could have arisen only if two findings were recorded by the High Court, viz., (1) the order in favour of Prakash Rani was a legal and valid one and (2) the case of the writ petitioners was similar in material respects to the case of Prakash Rani but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case stated in paras 2 and 3 of the judgment clearly discloses that there is absolutely no similarity in the facts of that case and the present case. The facts of that case are altogether different. It is in those facts and circumstances that that writ petition was allowed. We are unable to see any relevance of the principle of the said decision to the case before us. By saying this, we may not be understood to say that the decision in Jaswant Singh1 is correct. We express no opinion thereon since it is not necessary for us to do so in this case. 13.So far as the case before us is concerned, the fact remains that when the lease was cancelled on the respondent expressing her inability to pay the first or other instalments, the only contention raised by her in appeal was for reduction of the amount forfeited. She never questioned the cancellation of the lease. On the amount forfeited being reduced, she coolly took back the money and kept quiet for a period of seventeen years. It is only after the lapse of 17 years that she woke up evidently in view of the rise in prices and approached the High Court more in the nature of a gamble than for vindicating her legitimate rights. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
