TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead with prevalent development control regulations for Navi Mumbai. There are detailed regulations and procedures for allotment of land by CIDCO to various entities. Five different applications were made by respondent Nos. 5 to 10 to the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra who was also the Minister for Urban Development. All business of Urban Development Department was under the control of the Minister for urban development. The then Chief Minister in turn noted on five of the said applications the words please put up . Since the authority concerned i.e. CIDCO was required to process the same, the said applications were forwarded to the new town development authority i.e. CIDCO for further processing. No other or further endorsement of any nature whatsoever was made on any of the said files in relation to the said applications by the Chief Minister. Thus, except for the original noting please put up , no other noting, direction or order had been made or passed on any of the said files by the Chief Minister. A 6th application though addressed to the Chief Minister, no endorsement whatsoever was made by the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on the said file. The said file at no st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 5th April, 2004 Please process and pass by 12th April, 2004 (para 27) iv) Neither the then Chief Minister nor the Marketing Manager nor the Managing Director of CIDCO are seen to have made any query in spite of this astonishing similarity of approach of these six societies coming from different parts of the city. Strangely enough, their response to these identical applications is also astonishingly identical (para 28) v) It is esoteric how promoters of societies of such members initially applied not to CIDCO but to the Chief Minister whose office finds no place in the MRTP Act or the aforesaid Rules filed for grant of any plot of CIDCO . (para 38) vi) It is not known how he became the Chief Promoter of the said Society which applied later than the other societies and whose application was not only directed to be put up by the then Chief Minister but to be put up by a specific date within a week of the application having been made and even before its copy was received by the Managing Director of CIDCO (para 79) vii) The Chief Minister endorsed on five of them to the Managing Director to please put up and on the sixth to process and pass by the specified date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention. They are :- 1. Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka Anr. vs. State of Assam Anr., (1996) 6 SCC 234 (paras 6, 7 8). 2. Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'Lalan' (VIII) Anr. vs. Union of India Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 613 at 645 (para 57) 3. Dr. J.N. Banavalikar vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Anr., 1995 Suppl.(4) SCC 89 (para 21). 4. S. Pratap Singh vs. The State of Punjab, (1964) 4 SCR 733 at 747 (para 2). 5. A.K.K. Nambiar vs. Union of India Anr. 1969 (3) SCC 864 at 867 (para 8 9). Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned senior counsel for the first respondent (writ petitioner) submitted that the first respondent filed the writ petition by way of PIL in order to expose a massive and orchestrated scam by which CIDCO a special planning authority constituted under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 has diverted public lands intended for genuine cooperative housing societies to a small coterie of commercial builders/developers and thereby conferred massive commercial largesse upon such builders/developers while simultaneously causing losses to CIDCO and the members of the general public. According to him, small coteries of builders/developers approached the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuments produced before the High Court and the manner in which allotments were made by CIDCO that this was done only on the behest of the then Chief Minister. Learned senior counsel for the first respondent further submitted that the special leave petition was filed to seek expunction of certain adverse comments made against the former Chief Minister of Maharashtra was filed by the State of Maharashtra and not by Shri Sushil Kumar Shinde. According to the learned counsel, it is not open to the State of Maharashtra to now file a special leave petition to challenge the said findings or remarks and that if at all anybody is aggrieved by the said finding or remarks, it would be the former Chief Minister and he had chosen not to file any special leave petition nor to question the same. Hence, the present special leave petition is not maintainable. While winding up his argument, learned senior counsel for the first respondent made a prayer that he would now implead the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra - Shri Sushil Kumar Shinde as a party respondent and that permission in that regard may be granted to him in view of the importance of the public interest litigation. We have given our an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the applications be processed by any particular date. The words please put up, in our opinion, only meant that the applications should be processed and decided in accordance with law and on its own merits. CIDCO which is a Corporation had detailed rules which govern the allotment of land and are to be complied with by CIDCO before any allotment of land is made. The records placed before us indicates that the applications put up to CIDCO were processed at various levels including the marketing manager, assistant marketing officer, managing director and upto the stage of board of directors. In our view, the observations and strictures made by the High Court and are extracted in paragraphs supra certainly reflects on the functioning of the office of the Chief Minister and day-today discharge of the duties of the Chief Minister. As rightly pointed out by learned Solicitor General, after the endorsement 'please put up', is made the file may or may not be approved by the concerned department and it is clear that the said notations are not approval of the contents of the representation and in our view, no other meaning could be taken. The observations/strictures made and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rul addressed to the then Chief Minister. Similar endorsement 'please put up' was made by the Chief Minister on this application. At page 143, a similar application was made by Sagarika Cooperative Housing Society requesting for allotment of residential plot addressed to the Chief Minister who made an endorsement saying 'please put up'. At page 145, Sealink Cooperative Housing Society made an application requesting for allotment of residential plot addressed to the Chief Minister who made an endorsement 'please put up'. An application was made at page 147 by Sea-view Cooperative Housing Society addressed to the then Chief Minister who also made an endorsement saying 'please put up'. At page 149, an application made for allotment of developed land for residential purpose was made by Vinayak Cooperative Housing Society addressed to the then Chief Minister. The said application, though addressed to the Chief Minister, no endorsement whatsoever was made by the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on the said file. The said file at no stage reached the office of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The role of the Chief Minister ended on his endorsing 5 out of 6 f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Solicitor General. 1. Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka Anr. vs. State of Assam Anr., (1996) 6 SCC 234 (paras 6,7 8) The above judgment relates to expunging adverse remarks. The above was a case of adverse remarks recorded by the High Court against the members of hospital allegedly for misleading the court and stalling process of the court by submitting manipulated report regarding condition of a person to justify his shifting from police remand to the hospital. The High Court made adverse remarks without giving any opportunity to the members of extending or defending themselves, without any evidence showing that their conduct justified such remarks and without any necessity of such remarks for the purpose of deciding the matter. This Court held on facts that adverse remarks were unwarranted and hence expunged. This Court also cautioned superior courts to use temporate and moderate language and also held that opportunity to be given to the affected party before recording of adverse remarks by the Court. This Court also held thus: 6. The tests to be applied while dealing with the question of expunction of disparaging remarks against a person or authorities whose conduct comes in fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2006) 6 SCC 613 at 645 (para 57) In the above case, Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J. concurring with the opinion expressed by Hon. K.G.Balakrishnan, J. has observed that public interest litigation is meant for the benefit of the lost and the lonely and it is meant for the benefit of those whose social backwardness is the reason for no access to the Court and that PILs are not meant to advance the political gain and also to settle personal scores under the guise of PIL and to fight a legal battle. In para 57, it has been observed as follows:- 57. Certain allegations have been made against CBDT and the Public Prosecutors, Members of the Income-tax Tribunal, etc. None of them were made parties before us. Therefore, the allegations made against them are one-sided and cannot be looked into at all. We cannot also say that all these authorities have acted in a mala fide manner. 3. Dr. J.N. Banavalikar vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Anr., 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 89 This Court, in the above case, in para 21, observed thus: In the facts and circumstances of this appeal, it is not possible to hold that the impugned action in removing the appellant and appointing Dr. Patnaik is unfair or un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Medical Department who could only speak from official records and obviously not from personal knowledge about the several matters which were alleged against the Chief Minister. In these circumstances we do not think it would be proper to brush aside the allegations made by the appellant, particularly in respect of those matters where they are supported by some evidence of a documentary nature seeing that there is no contradiction by those persons who alone could have contradicted them. In making this observation we have in mind the Chief Minister as well as Mrs. Kairon against whom allegations have been made but who have not chosen to state on oath the true facts according to them. Before passing on to a consideration of the details of the several allegations there is one matter to which we ought to make reference at this stage and that is the admissibility and evidentiary value of the tape-recorded talks which have been produced as part of his supporting evidence by the appellant. The learned Judges of the High Court without saying in so many terms that these were inadmissible in evidence, this being the contention raised by the respondent- state, have practically put them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suffer from the mischief of lack of proper verification with the result that the affidavits should not be admissible in evidence. The affidavit evidence assumes importance in the present case because of allegations of mala fide acts on the part of the respondents. The appellant alleged that the Union of India made the order of suspension because of the pressure of the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant, however, did not name any person of the Union of India who acted in that manner and did not implead the Chief Minister as a party. In order to succeed on the proof of mala fides in relation to the order of suspension, the appellant has to prove either that the order of suspension was made mala fide or that the order was made for collateral purposes. In the present case, the appellant neither alleged nor established either of these features. In the instant case, allegations have been made against the then Chief Minister, however, he was not made party before the Court. Therefore, the allegations made against him are one-sided and do not merit any consideration. We are surprised to find that inspite of catena of decisions of this Court, the High Court did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Director were party to it. Would the Managing Directors and the officers of CIDCO have entertained these applicants who are principally slum dwellers for this prime plot known as Marine Drive of Navi Mumbai , if they were to approach them without being led by these traders and supported by a builder and without the blessings of the Chief Minister? It is either a case of involvement in the design or of gross dereliction of duty. In either case, it is unjustifiable and highly objectionable and the consequences must follow (para 139). Now suddenly it appears that this device has been invented and with the participation of the officers of CIDCO right from the Managing Director to who so ever are the persons below, all the conditions of allotment and scrutiny are given a go by and a prime plot sought to be handed over to a builder on a platter . A good scheme has been permitted to be misused with full connivance of the officers of CIDCO. (para 140) What we find is that there is a complete dereliction of responsibilities on the part of the then Managing Director of CIDCO and who so ever were incharge of this project. Merely because the then CM had asked them to process early, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the appellant when the appellant was not a party to the said proceedings nor was directed to be made a party. The High Court was also not right in passing the comments against the appellant without giving an opportunity to the appellant of being heard. The act of the High Court, in our opinion, is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The party in person cited a ruling of the this court being State of Bihar vs. Lal Krishna Advani Others, (2003) 8 SCC 361 at page 367 wherein it was observed that strictures cannot be passed against an individual without making him a party and without giving an opportunity to be heard since the right to reputation is an individual's fundamental right. In our opinion, the observations made by the High Court in paras 38, 139, 140 141 of the impugned order are absolutely uncalled for as the appellant was not a party to the said PIL and they are also based on complete misunderstanding of the facts. The observations made by the High Court as rightly pointed out by the party in person would have wide ramifications and adverse impact on the career of the appellant. We have already dealt with the cases and the rulings on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
