Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2019 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1307 - SC - Indian LawsRejection of review petition - Auction - Disposal of Municipal property - HELD THAT:- Whenever any land which is having a value exceeding fifty thousand rupees is to be sold the same cannot be done without the previous sanction of the State Government The scope of judicial review of an administrative action is very limited. Unless the Court comes to a conclusion, that the decision maker has not understood the law correctly that regulates his decisionmaking power or when it is found that the decision of the decision maker is vitiated by irrationality and that too on the principle of “Wednesbury Unreasonableness” or unless it is found that there has been a procedural impropriety in the decisionmaking process, it would not be permissible for the High Court to interfere in the decision making process. It is also equally well settled, that it is not permissible for the Court to examine the validity of the decision but this Court can examine only the correctness of the decisionmaking process. Undisputedly, in the present case, before inviting the bids, prior approval of the State Government as is required under Section 109 of the said Act was not taken. It appears, that only after the tender process was finalized and the Municipal Council had taken a decision to accept the bid of Respondent No.1, two municipal counsellors raised objection under the provisions of Section 323 of the said Act, before the Collector, Neemuch - In the present case, we find that the Commissioner had acted rightly as a custodian of the public property by pointing out the anomalies in the proposal of the Municipal Council to the State Government and the State Government has also responded in the right perspective by authorising the Commissioner to take an appropriate decision. By no stretch of imagination, the decision of the State Government or the Commissioner could be termed as illegal, improper, unreasonable or irrational, which parameters only could have permitted the High Court to interfere. Interference by the High Court when none of such parameters exist, in our view, was totally improper. On the contrary, we find that it is the High Court, which has failed to take into consideration relevant material. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|