Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2011 (5) TMI SC This
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.
|