2007 (12) TMI 445 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court did not ask the parties to clarify any doubt it entertained as regards certain crucial aspects?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
2. Alleged irregularities and malafides in the allotment of land to respondent No.5.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice by the High Court.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
The Supreme Court scrutinized the legitimacy of the PIL filed by the respondent, who described himself as the Chief Spokesperson of the Indian National Congress. The Court emphasized that PIL should not be used for "publicity interest litigation," "private interest litigation," or "politics interest litigation." The PIL must involve genuine public interest and not be a tool for personal vendetta or political motives. The Court cited several precedents, including *The Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary* and *Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau of Investigation*, to underline that only a person acting bona fide with sufficient interest in the proceedings of PIL can approach the Court. The Court also noted that frivolous petitions waste valuable judicial time and should be dismissed with costs to deter misuse.

2. Alleged Irregularities and Malafides in the Allotment of Land to Respondent No.5:
The writ petition alleged that the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority allotted land to respondent No.5 at throwaway prices without issuing any notice or inviting competitive bids, causing heavy loss to the State. It was claimed that the allotments were politically motivated and malafide. The High Court found the allotments to be "thoroughly irregular" and "completely untenable," but rejected the allegation of malafides, giving the State the "benefit of doubt." The High Court directed the Authority to resume possession of the lands and allowed respondent No.5 to make fresh applications with proper Project Reports for consideration.

3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice by the High Court:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court's conclusions were based on a reading of the files without providing an opportunity for the parties to clarify doubts. The appellant argued that the High Court's observations were contrary to the materials on record and that there was a complete violation of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court should have given the parties an opportunity to explain the fact situation and address any doubts. The Court emphasized that the High Court's conclusions about irregularity/illegality in allotment were drawn without adequate clarification from the parties involved.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to allow the parties to place additional material in support of their respective stands and take a decision within four weeks. The Supreme Court made it clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed to the extent of remitting the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision.