TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no.2, the Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. Of which petitioner no.3 Ram Nath Goenka is the Chairman of the Board of Directors. Petitioner no.4 Nihal Singh was the then Editor-in-chief of the Indian Express and petitioner no.5 Romesh Thapar was the Editor of the Seminar published from the Express Buildings. Respondent no.1 is the Union of India, no.2 is Jagmohan, Lt. Governor of Delhi, no.3 the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, no.4 the Zonal Engineer (Buildings), no.5 the Land Development Officer, etc. The petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of a notice of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease issued by the Engineer Officer, Land Development Office, New Delhi dated March 10, 1980 purporting to be on behalf of the lessor i.e.. the Government of India, Ministry of Works Housing, New Delhi. The said notice required petitioner no.1, the Express Newspapers Pvt ., New Delhi to show cause why the Union of India should not re-enter upon and take possession of the demised premises i.e. plots nos. 9 and 10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg together with the Express Buildings built thereon under cl.5 of the aforesaid indenture of lease dated March 17, 1958 for the alleged b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Building with an increased FAR of 360 with a double basement for installation of a printing press for publication of a Hindi Newspaper on the western portion of the demised premises i.e. plots nos. 9 and 10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi with the Express Buildings built thereon. The Lt. Governor asserts that he has the power and authority to administer the properties the Union of India in the Union Territory of Delhi. The further question is whether the grant of sanction by the then Minister for Works Housing and the consequential sanction of building plans by him of the new Express Building was contrary to the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plans framed under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and the municipal bye-laws, 1959 made under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and therefore the lessor i.e. the Union of India had the power to issue a notice of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease under cl.5 of the indenture of lease dated March 17, 1958 and take possession of the demised premises together with the Express Buildings built thereon and the Municipal Corporation had the authority to direct demolition of the said buildings as unauthorized construction under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmittee and made available all relevant files and connected papers. 4. The Commissioner of the MCD had been separately adviced to take immediate action in regard to the unauthorized deviations made from the sanctioned plan in the construction of the new Express Building. The Lt. Governor also held out a threat at the press conference that the new Express Building might have to be demolished. The holding of the press conference was broadcast over the All India Radio within an hour and within two hours the Delhi Doordarshan telecast the same and read out the contents of the press release. It also exhibited the film both of the press conference as well as of the new Express Building. On the same day i.e. On March 1, 1980, although the relevant files had been removed from his office, the Zonal Engineer (buildings), City Zone, Municipal Corporation served a notice on petitioner no.1 the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. to show cause why action should not be taken for demolition of the Express Buildings under 88. 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. It reads as under : Number 79/B/ua/cz/80XXIII Dated 1.3.1980. You are hereby informed that on your property sit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lease by any person or institution. Whereas the files of the Corporation were summoned by respondent no.2 before the press conference on March 1, 1980, the files of the Ministry of Works Housing were summoned by him in the first week of March 1980. It is admitted by the Ministry of Works Housing that the said files were made available to respondent no.2 on March 7, 1980. On March 7, 1980, the Land Development Officer acting as part of the overall plan of respondent no.2 issued a notice of re-entry upon forfeiture of the lease signed by the Engineer Officer in the Land Development Officer under the Ministry of Works Housing purporting to act for and on behalf of the President of India under clause XIX of the agreement of lease alleging that there were breaches in contravention of cl. (11) of the agreement for lease dated May 26, 1954. This notice was later withdrawn because it was realized that forfeiture of the lease had to be with reference to the registered indenture of lease dated March 17, 1958 and not under cl. XIX of the agreement for lease of 1954. On March 10,1980, the Engineer Officer in the Land Development Office issued a notice in supersession of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer was asked to complete the measurement by 10.3.1980. It is clear that there had been no application of mind by the Engineer Officer in issuing the show cause notice. The recital of these events clearly shows that respondent no.2 displayed great zeal in causing a probe into the manner in which sanction was granted by the then Minister for Works Housing for the construction of the new Express building with an increased FAR of 360 with a double basement for installation of a printing press and the entire administration was geared into action with lightning speed 80 as to ensure that some action or other was taken against the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. This is evident from the fact, for instance, that he gave the Three-Member Committee only three days to examine questions which, if they were properly scrutinized, would require inspection of the records from the year 1949 onwards of at least six agencies viz. Ministry of Works Housing, Land Development Office in the Ministry of Works Housing, New Delhi Municipal Committee, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Water supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking and the Union of India. He not only constituted a committee of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allation of a printing press therefore on the ground floor with residential accommodation for the staff on the top. Incidentally, the Central Government had in the year 1949 demarcated the press area along the Bahadurshah Zafar Marg consisting of 10 plots nos. 1 to 10 known as the Press Enclave as a commercial complex for allotment to the press viz. to various newspapers like the Indian Express, h Times of India, Patriot, National Herald etc. These other newspapers like the Times of India, Patriot, National Herald were also granted similar plots on the same conditions and were allowed to build on the entire area of their respective plots without any restrictions whatsoever. The petitioners case is that the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. was first allotted plots no.1 and 2 but later at the request of Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Prime Minister of India, it accepted instead plots nos. 9 and 10 as the Government required plots nos. 1 and 2 for construction of the Gandhi Memorial Hall known as the Pearey Lal Bhawan. Preliminary work of construction of the Express Buildings : Discovery of underground sewer line: Execution of fresh lease agreement dated November While the preliminary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintain another sewer line along this land, if necessary. The letter went on to say that necessary instructions had been issued to the Chief Commissioner of Delhi in that behalf with a request that the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. should get in touch with the Land Development Office, New Delhi for taking k possession of the land. It would appear from the letter that the Ministry of Works Housing permitted the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. to construct on plots nos. 9 and 10 to the east of the sewer line with a corresponding reduction in the amount of premium and ground rent for the area west of the sewer line as compared to the amount chargeable to the area east of the sewer line. Execution of the indenture of lease dated March 17, 1958 and the terms thereof. By a registered indenture of lease dated March 17, 1958 executed between the President of India of the one part and the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Of the other part, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi under the instruction of the Government of India relating to the disposal of building sites in the new Capital of India demised on behalf of the Union of India in perpetuity the nazul land described therein in consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the effect : The lessor doth hereby permit the lessee to use 1,00,000 (one lac) sq.feet out of the total accommodation of 1,50,000 (one ant a half lac) sq.ft. in the said Express Newspaper Building for general office use commercial or otherwise, excluding commercial ventures like hotel, cinema, restaurant etc. and subject to the other provisions and conditions mentioned in clause 7 of the said lease. Provided further that the lessee shall all along continue to use at least 50,000 (fifty thousand) sq.feet of the accommodation in the said Express Newspaper Building for the use of press/presses, office/offices of its newspaper, publications and other ventures. And that : And this indenture further witnesseth that in consideration of the premises, the lessee doth hereby covenant to the that the lessee will pay an additional ground rent of ₹ 5746.88p. per annum as and from the 15th day of January 1960 over and above the ground rent reserved under the said principal lease to be paid by equal half-yearly payments from the 15th day of July each year as provided in the said principal lease-deed. The effect was that the lessor i.e. the Union of India, M of Works Ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se dated May 26, 1954 under which the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. was entitled to construct a four storeyed Express Building on the entire area of plots nos. 9 and 10. They continued to recognize the right of the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. to revert to the terms and conditions thereof as soon as the obstacle to further construction thereto that had been discovered, unknown to the parties that there was an underground sewage drain running through plots nos. 9 and 10 diagonally, was removed. In particular, they continued to recognize the right of the petitioners to build on the land kept as open space to the west of the sewer line, once the drain was diverted. This would be evident from the two facts : 1. The Union of India being the lessor left with the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. the area to the west of the drain on a reduced premium because it had to be kept as an open space for protection of the drain. And 2. While nazul plots that are to be left open are valued at ₹ 4840 per acre and ground rent is assessed accordingly, the area to the west of the drain was assessed at ₹ 36,000 per acre implying thereby that it was not an area to be kept vacant in perpetuit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid Entries 1, 6 and 23 (a) and (1), all matters relating to the properties of the Union including allocation of Government lands in Delhi and the administration of the Land Development Office were exclusively vested in the Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, later the Ministry of Works Housing Under Art. 299(1) of the constitution, the President issued a notification No. GSR 585 dated February 1, 1966 supersession of the earlier notification no. 1161 dated December 1, 1958. The Land Development Officer under Entry XXI, Item 7 was authorized to execute contracts assurance of property relating to matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Land Development Office. The relevant Entry reads : 7. In the case of Land Development Office : (i) All contracts and assurances of property relating to matters falling within the jurisdiction of Land Development Officer; (ii) all contracts, deeds and other instruments relating to or for the purpose of enforcement of the terms and conditions of the sale/lease-deeds of the Government Built Property in Delhi/New Delhi; (iii) auctioneering agreements, bonds of auctioneers and security bonds for the due performance of wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on April 7, 1958. On September 10, 1962 the Central Government approved the Master Plan for Delhi, prepared by the Delhi Development Authority under s.7 of the Delhi Development Act. The Master Plan makes specific regulations for commercial areas and especially for already built-up commercial areas i.e. walled city of Old Delhi. But the press area on the Mathura Road Commercial Complex although specified as a commercial area is not listed in the list of already built-up commercial areas which relate to the walled city of Old Delhi. On November 26, 1956 the Central Government approved the Zonal Development Plan for D-II area prepared by the Delhi Development Authority under 8.8 of the Act within which the press plots are located. It provided for an FAR of 400 for the press area in the Bahadurshah Zafar Marg. The material on record discloses that the construction of the new Express Building with an incresed FAR of 360 with a double basement was in conformity with cls. 2(5) and 2(14) of the perpetual lease-deed dated March 17, 1958 inasmuch as it was with the express sanction of the lessor i.e. the Union of India. It is also quite clear that Sikander Bakht, the then Minister for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rdingly requested the lessor i.e. the Union of India, Ministry of Works Housing for permission to construct on the open space admeasuring 2740 sq.yards on the western side of plots nos 8. 9 and 10 indicating the permissible built-up area as also the terms on which the additional space could be 80 utilized. A copy of the letter was marked to the Land Development Office, Ministry of Works Housing. On November 3, 1977 the Secretary instructed the Joint Secretary to call a representative of the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. and the Land Development Officer and evolve a solution. The Joint Secretary (Delhi Division) directed the Under Secretary (Land Division) to do the needful. Incidentally, the Ministry has two separate divisions, the Delhi Division and the Land Division, both working under the control of the Joint Secretary (Delhi Division). Delhi Division deals with matters pertaining to the Delhi Development Authority and Urban Development while the Land Division deals with matters relating to allotment of government lands and administration of lease. It follows that the Delhi Division was competent to deal with matters relating to construction of the new Express Building incl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Minister wherein permission to build on the entire area of the plots in question was sought. A copy of the letter was endorsed to the Minister. On December 30, 1977 the Chief Engineer, Delhi Water Supply Sewage Disposal Undertaking wrote a letter to R.K. Mishra, General Manager, Indian Express stating that it would cost ₹ 2.5 lakhs to divert the sewer line and that the completion of work would take about five months after the deposit was made. This was in reply to the letter sent by Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. On October 12, 1977. Accordingly, the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. On December 31, 1977 wrote to the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Works Housing that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi i.e. the Delhi Water supply Sewage Disposal Undertaking had indicated that the underground drain could be shifted 80 that it would run outside the lease hold premises and therefore there should be no objection to the construction of the new Express Building, and requested the Ministry for advice on the FAR permissible for the said building. According to the note recorded by the Minister on the margin of the letter of petitioner no.3 Ram Nath Goenka dated December 7, 1977 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he farthest we should accommodate. May process further accordingly. The Ministry of Works Housing by letter dated February 2, 1978 conveyed to the Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority the decision of the Union of India to permit the petitioners to build with an FAR of 360 as below : It has been decided that FAR in this case may be increased upto 360 so that with the extra basement area the firm would have an additional built-up area of nearly 50,000 sq.feet. You are requested to take necessary action in the matter. Copies of this letter were endorsed to the Town Country Planning Organization and Officer Inchrage, Master Plan in the Delhi Development Authority. The Additional Secretary, (Master Plan), Delhi Development Authority however maintained that the FAR permissible for the press area was only 300 with 80 ground coverage, 70 on the first floor and 50 on the second, third and fourth floors. Another letter dated March 6, 1978 was addressed by petitioner no.3, Ram Nath Goenka, to the Minister in which he reiterated the earlier request made by him for allowing the petitioners to build on 100% of the plinth area, only with the height restriction of 60 feet. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that making of exceptions of this nature was precisely the stick with which the Delhi Development Authority was beaten for its own office building i.e. Vikas Minar which far exceeded FAR 400 and Was in breach of all building bye-laws. He accordingly suggested that FAR 300 might be permitted with the condition that necessary parking facilities would have to be provided. On May 24, 1978, the Deputy Secretary recorded a note directing that further action to implement the said decision of the Minister to restrict the FAR to 300 may be taken by the Land Development Officer. On June 9, 1978, the Deputy Secretary, Delhi Development Authority informed the Vice- Chairman of the decision of the government restricting the FAR to 300- It appears that the case was revived on July 14, 1978 when Sikandar Bakht, Minister for Works Housing wanted to know after some representative of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. had visited his office, if the press area and the FAR therefor were mentioned in the Master Plan and whether or not the FAR achieved for the Express Buildings was 500, it would not operate for fresh construction in the press area for which the FAR was not to exceed 300. A meeti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AR of 3.6 taking into account the existing A FAR. In that case the existing building line of the adjoining plots shall have to be maintained. The basement has been excluded from the calculation of the FAR and the installation of Press Machinery like any other service machinery is permitted. The parking on the service road is permitted in the same manner as it is for other buildings in this line. However, adequate parking facility shall have to be provided in the open area which may be so planned to make usable for parking purposes. On the detailed examination of the lay-out plan, he observed that as per FAR of 360 construction was permitted on 1,84,886.07 sq.feet as against the existing FAR covering an area of 1,29,028 sq.feet i.e. the overall ground coverage now permitted was 13.81% i.e. 379 4.92 sq. feet. The petitioners were directed to submit the plans to the concerned authorities for approval. A set of plans as submitted by the petitioners and examined as per norms was enclosed. On November 17, 1978, the Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority addressed a letter to the Ministry of Works Housing recommending extension of FAR from 300 to 360. On November 24, 1978 the Gov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al and without jurisdiction and are contrary to the factual and legal provisions. The arbitrary and discriminatory initiation of executive action under the guise of alleged infraction of the terms of the lease and/or the Master Plan of Delhi and/or the municipal building bye-laws is violative of the petitioners fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 2. The construction of the new Express Building with an increased FAR of 36 was in conformity with clause 2(5) of the perpetual lease dated March 17, 1958 inasmuch as it was with the express sanction of the lessor i.e. the Union of India. The grant of permission by Sikandar Bakht, the then Minister for Works Housing to sanction the construction of the new Express Building with an increased FAR of 360 was in accordance with the Master Plan, after M.N. Buch, Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority by his order dated October 21, 1978 as one under special appeal under the Master Plan, Chapter II, Part A, Zoning Regulations, Item 13, Use Zone - C-2, at p.50 directed that plots nos. 9 and 10 at Bahadurshah Zafar Marg leased to the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. should be amalgamated together int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Although specified as a commercial area, it is not listed in the list of already built-up commercial areas because it relates to the walled city of Old Delhi. The zonal development plan for D-II area within which the press plots are located permitted an FAR of 400 for the press area in the Bahadurshah Zafar Marg. In short, the submission is that all that the then Minister for Works Housing did was to restore to the petitioners the right that they acquired under the perpetual lease dated March 17, 1958 i.e.. to be treated alike all other plot holders in that area and a denial of such equal terms would be opposed to the principles of equality besides being violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. 4. The lessor i.e.. the Union of India is estopped by A the doctrine of promissory estoppel and cannot therefore go back upon all assurances given and actions taken by the previous government, particularly when the petitioners had acted upon the decisions so reached and had constructed the new Express Building with a cost of approximately ₹ 1.30 crore by February 1980 which at present would cost more than Rs.. 3 crores. In substance, the petitioners contend that where permiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relation to the property of the Union in the Union Territory of Delhi, and that the Lieutenant Governor is not a successor of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. There was no notification issued by the President under Art. 239(1) of the Constitution for the conferral of any power on the Lieutenant-Governor to administer the lease in question. No doubt, by virtue of the notification issued by the President on September 7, 1966 under Art. 239(1), the Lieutenant Governor has, subject to the like control by the President, the same powers and functions as well as exercisable by the Chief Commissioner with power to administer the property of the union. There 18, admittedly, no such notification issued by the President under Art. 239(1) vesting either the Chief Commissioner of Delhi or the Lieutenant- Governor with any such power. 8. In any event, it is inconceivable that after October 1, 1959 when the administrative control over the Land Development Officer was transferred from the Delhi Administration to the Ministry of Works Housing and by virtue of a notification issued under Art. 299(1), the Secretary, Ministry of Works Housing was made the competent authority to act for the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factually and legally not a notice of re-entry upon forfeiture of the lease as contemplated by cl. 5 and 6 of the lease-deed, based as it was on non-existent ground. Although the lease-deed permits remedy of any breach of any of the terms thereof, the opportunity to effect such a remedy has not been, and as indeed it is clear, it is not intended to be, granted to the petitioners and instead, there is a threat of re-entry upon the leasehold premises upon forfeiture of the lease. II.Respondents Case 1. Respondent No.2 Jagmohan, Lt. Governor of Delhi filed a counter on behalf of all the respondents asserting that the perpetual lease-deed dated March 18, 1958 was executed on behalf of the lessor by the Assistant Secretary to the Department of Local Self Government under the administrative control of the Chief Commissioner/Lt. Governor of Delhi ; that the demise land is nazul land vested in the President of India, for the management, control and disposal of which the Land 6 Development Officer in the Department of Local Self Government, was created; and that as a matter of fiscal policy, the administrative control of the Land Development Office, New Delhi was transferred from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious violations of the lease-deed by the petitioners. The show cause notice by respondent no.5 was issued in exercise of powers under cl.4 of the perpetual lease-deed dated March 17, 1958 for violation of cl. 2(5), 2(9) etc. As regards the impugned show cause notice issued by the Zonal Engineer (Building), City Zone, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, lt was asserted that the same had been issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in exercise of its statutory powers under ss. 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act after verification of the allegations. 3. Respondent no.2 has sought to disown all responsibility for the issuances of two impugned show cause notices but asserted that being the Lt. Governor of Delhi, he was responsible for the administration of the Union Territory of Delhi and as such he was acting within his powers to direct all the authorities concerned to prevent violation of laws by any person or institution. He further asserted that he, as the Lt. Governor of Delhi, was fully competent to appoint the Enquiry Committee under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952. It was denied that the Union of India or the Lt. Governor of Delhi intended to inflict a r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relations between the parties were governed by the lease agreement dated May 26, 1954 which was modified and superseded by the subsequent lease agreement dated November 19, 1957, since this had also been substituted by the registered perpetual lease dated March 17, 1958 which alone, according to him, governed the relationship effectively and legally between the Union of India and the Lt. Governor of Delhi on the one hand and the Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. on the other. It was denied that the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Works housing Government of India had any jurisdiction or authority to permit diversion of the sewer line as he was not authorized to represent the Central Government for the purpose of administration of the lease and, therefore, any attempt on the part of the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. to rely upon the agreement of 1954 or on the subsequent agreement of 1957 to justify the action of the municipal Corporation of Delhi in shifting the sewer line beyond the leasehold permises was an exercise in futility. It was asserted that cl. 2(5) of the perpetual lease could not be availed of by the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. in the absence of a permission granted by repre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt no.6. 6. After referring to the grant of permission by the Ministry of Works Housing and the Delhi Development Authority, respondent no.2 averred in para 89 : With reference to para 28(4) and (c) it is denied that the breach complained of was capable of remedy. As already stated, the so-called permission obtained by the petitioners did not amount to any valid permission under the terms of the perpetual lease-deed dated March 18, 1958. It is submitted that the petitioners were bound to apply to the competent authority and obtain prior approval of the lessor before commencing construction and the petitioners knew who the competent authority was The petitioners did not make any application under any of the terms of the lease-deed before co missing the breach of the lease-deed. (Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid averments clearly bring out the stand of respondent no.2 that he alone and not the Ministry of Works , Housing was competent to act on behalf of the lessor i.e. the Union of India and this is brought out in the averment which immediately follows: It is further submitted that for any breach of clauses (3),(9) and (10) of clause 2 of the lease deed, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. It was then added : With reference to para 30(j), it is denied that the actions taken by the Ministry of Works Housing and the Delhi Development Authority constituted a restoration of the rights of the petitioners under the lease agreement of 1954, as the agreement of 1954 was inadmissible being nonexistent and inoperative after its substitution by the agreement of 1957 as per perpetual lease-deed dated March 18, 1958, it was asserted that the petitioners could construct on the residual area of plots nos. 9 and 10 only in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease-deed of 1958 and subject to the provisions of the Master Plan and the Municipal Bye-laws. It was asserted that the lease deed of 1958 envisaged compliance with the Municipal Bye-laws for any future constructions/additions in plots nos. 9 and 10. 8. It will be seen that the points ought to be made out by respondents no.2 in his counteraffidavit are : (a) At present the perpetual lease-deed dated March 18, 1958 governs the relationship effectively between the Union of India and the Lt. Governor on the one hand and the petitioners on the other i.e. the relations between the parties. (b) The tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... os. 9 and 10. I am advised , to state that under the terms of the lease deed of 1958, previous consent of either the President of India or the chief Commissioner (Lt. Governor) or such officer or body as the lessor (President of India) or the chief Commissioner of Delhi authorised was necessary for building activity on the residual area of the plots (2740 sq. yards) the Ministry of Works Housing did not represent the lessor or the chief commissioner. 10. It is somewhat strange that Land Development Officer, who is the last functionary in the Ministry of Works Housing should challenge the very authority and power of the Ministry of Works Housing to administer the lease on behalf of the President of India. He has also averred in para 5 : The impugned show cause notice of 10th March 1980 was issued to the petitioners under cl. 6 of the perpetual lease for violation of sub-clauses (5) and (14) of clause 2 of the lease-deed. The Land Development Officer is not a functionary under the Ministry of Works Housing . He officer appointed on behalf of the lessor to administer the lease. At no stage the petitioners approached the office of Land Development for permission to c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he hearing was resumed on November 4, 1982 of the Union of India speaking through the voice of learned counsel for respondent no.2 was more than we could permit. We sent for Shri L.N. Sinha, the learned Attorney General and he rightly objected to anyone speaking on behalf of the Union of India. We directed the learned Attorney General to appear and assist the Court. During the pendency of the proceedings, Shri Sinha demitted his office and Shri Parasaran was appointed to be the Attorney General. The Union of India engaged Shri Sinha as its counsel and he continued to represent respondent no.1. We are grateful to learned counsel for the parties who dealt with all aspects of the various constitutional issues and other questions of great public importance with their usual industry and have supplemented their arguments by filing written submissions. Learned counsel for respondent no .1 has throughout been emphatic in contending that respondent no.2 was a complete stranger to the lease and he did not represent the lessor, the Union of India. Strangely enough, Dr. Singhvi continued to appear not only for respondent no.2 the Lt.Governor but also for respondent no.5 the Land Development ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted without even taking the trouble of amending the law of the statutory provisions, there are no mala fides, according to the writ petitioners- On the same day i.e. On November 4, 1982, we sent for Shri L.N. Sinha, the then Attorney-general and drew his attention to the averments made by respondents no. 7 in the fresh affidavit alleging that the orders passed by the then Minister for Works Housing were illegal, improper irregular. We felt that it was highly improper for respondent no.2 to have made such extreme allegations against the then Minister for Works Housing and against the previous Government in power. Accordingly, we called upon respondent no.1 Union of India to clarify its stand with regard to the following aspects: 1. The authority of respondent no.2 to make allegations of fraud , misuse of powers and misdemeanors against the functionaries of the Union of India including the Minister, Works Housing. 2. The stand of respondent no.1, Union of India, to the case of the petitioners without adopting the counter affidavit of respondent no.2. 3. The specific reply, if any, of the Union of India to the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -affidavit filed by respondent no.2 be read as part and parcel of this counter-affidavit. I am advised to categorically deny any allegation of mala fides, design or animosity on the part of respondent no.1 as alleged. The respondents have also placed on record two affidavits of M.N. Buch and H.R. Ailawadi, both of whom became Vice-Chairmen, Delhi Development Authority. Ailawadi in his affidavit avers that the demised land is a nazul land which vested in the President of India. For management, control and disposal of such lands, Land Development Office in the Department of Local Self Government was created. As a matter of fiscal policy, the administrative control of the Land Development Office, Delhi was transferred from the Delhi Administration to the Ministry of Works, Housing Supply w.e.f. October 1, 1959. He asserts that this transfer was on administration and fiscal grounds and did not divest the Chief Commissioner of the powers given to him by the parties under the lease as the representative of the President of India. He further avers that the sewer line, according to the terms of the lease, could not be diverted without the consent of the Chief Commissioner (Lt.G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 457 (b)Coverage : According to the Master Plan and A building bye-laws, which were in force prior to 24.12.76, coverage for different floors of a five storey building was as under : Ground floor 80% First 70% Second 50% Third 50% Fourth 50% He then refers to the amended rule dated 24.12.76 which prescribed for all commercially developed areas, including offices, coverage of 25% and asserts that the press area is covered by the amendment. He also asserts that even the earlier rule was violated by allowing 75.43% on the first floor and 77.5 coverage on the second and third floors. Further he states that for commercial areas, parking has to be done within the plots and within the covered area. In the present case, no provision was made for parking of the vehicle within the plot and then adds : In the Municipal Bye-laws, there is no provision for waiving, relaxing and modifying the rules referred to above. The sanction was, therefore, accorded illegally and under undue pressure from vested interests. In his counter-affidavit, M.N Buch avers in para 3 that he had not authorized respondent no.2 or anyone else to swear an affidavit on his behalf and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approval of the building plans in the instant case . It is rather pertinent to observe that in his counteraffidavit Buch does not explain the implications of his specific order as the Vice-Chairman dated October 21, 1978 for amalgamation of plots nos.9 and 10 and permitting construction of the new Express Building with an increased FAR of 360 with a double basement for installation of the printing press, directing that it was not merely a communication from the Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority to the Ministry of Works Housing but per se it was an order passed by M.N. Buch as Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority and he concludes by observing : The Minister, Works Housing had discussed the case with me and ordered that the case should be cleared immediately and his ex-post-facto sanction obtained. On this basis, we may issue clearance to the Express Authorities and also make a reference to the Government of India asking for confirmation of the action taken. The order should be treated as an order under Special Appeal . A perusal of the counter-affidavit of M.N. Buch bears out that the maker or an instrument is not always its best interpreter. Nothing re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thura Road commercial area was totally prohibited on FAR exceeding 300 i.e. whether such area does fall within the expression already built-up commercial area or whether The Master Plan does not refer to the Mathura Road commercial area nor does such area fall within the expression already built-up commercial area i.e. the area falling within the walled city of Delhi. (b) Whether the permitted users in the Use-Zone CII viz. the zone in which the present area falls do not exclude newspaper and printing press except only if such user is allowed by a competent authority after special appeal that newspaper and printing presses are permitted to be installed. 4. Whether the Ministry of Works Housing with the Minister at the head was and is the ultimate authority responsible for the following items of works Property of the Union, Town and Country Planning, Delhi Development Authority, Master Plan of Delhi, Administration of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the Land Development Office dealing with the administration of Nazi Lands in the Union Territory of Delhi. If that be so whether the orders passed by Sikandar Bakht, the then Minister for Works housing granting permissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on complained of. 8. Whether the notice of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease issued by the Engineer Officer, Land Development Office, New Delhi dated March 10, 1980 purporting to be on behalf of the lessor i.e. the Union of India, Ministry of Works Housing, and that of March 1, 1980 issued by the Zonal Engineer (Building), Municipal Corporation, City Zone, Delhi, were wholly mala fide and politically motivated. For a proper appreciation of the points involved, it is necessary to set out the material clauses of the indenture of lease-deed dated March 17, 1958. Clauses 2(5), 2(14), 4, 5 and 6, insofar as material, run as follows : 2(5). The lessee will not without the previous consent in writing of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi or of such officer or body as the lessor or the Chief Commissioner of Delhi may authorize in this behalf make any alterations in or additions to the building erected on the said demised premises so as to affect any of the architectural or structural features thereof or suffer to be erected on any part of the said demised premises or any building other than and except the building erected thereon at the date of these presents. 2.(14). The l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the lessee a notice in writing : (a) specifying the particular breach complained of (b) if the breach is capable of remedy, requiring the Lessee to remedy the breach and the Lessee fails within a resonable time from the date of service of the notice to remedy the breach, if it is capable of remedy, and in the event of forfeiture of re-entry the Chief Commissioner may in his discretion relieve against forfeiture on such terms and conditions as he thinks proper. The Acts We may then refer to the relevant provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 which is paramount law on the subject and overrides the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The word Building is defined in section 2(b) as including any structure or erection or part of a structure or erection which is intended to be used for residential, industrial, commercial or other purposes, whether in actual use or not; And the term building operations as defined in section 2(c) includes rebuilding operations, structural alterations of or additions to buildings and other operations normally undertaken in connection with the construction of buildings. In section 2(d) the term development i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority or until such provisions have been made in accordance with the provisions of the regulations relating to the grant of permission for development made under the Delhi (Control of Building Operations) Act, 1955, and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act: It is common ground that the Press Enclave on the Mathura Road Commercial Complex has not been declared under s. 12(1) to be a development area for purposes of the Act. S.14 provides that after the coming into operation of any of the plans in a zone no person shall use or permit to be used any land or building in that zone otherwise than in conformity with such plan. S.29(1) makes it a penal offence to undertake or carry out development of any land in contravention of the Master Plan or Zonal Development Plans or without the permission, approval or sanction referred to in s. 12 or in contravention of any condition subject to which such permission, approval or sanction has been granted. S.53(3) is important for our purpose and it reads : 53(3): Notwithstanding anything contained in any such other law- (a) when permission for development in respect of any land has been obtained under this Act suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-s.(2) or under s. 340 he shall record a brief statement of his reasons for such refusal and communicate the refusal alongwith the reasons therefor to the person who has given the notice. S.343(1) provides inter alia that where the erection of any building or execution of any work has been commenced, or is being carried on, or has been completed without or contrary to the sanction referred to in s. 336....... The Commissioner may in addition to any other section that may be taken under the Act, make an order directing that such erection or work shall be demolished. Proviso thereto enjoins that no such order of demolition shall be made unless a person has been afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause by a notice in writing as to why such order shall not be made. Sub-s.(2) provides that the person aggrieved may prefer an appeal against an order of demolition passed under sub-s.(1) to the District Judge. Sub-s.(3) confers power on the District Judge to order stay of demolition. Sub-s.(5) thereof provides that the order made by the District Judge on appeal and subject only to such order, the order of demolition made by the Commissioner shall be final and conclusive. Likew ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stitutes a breach of the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plans or clauses 2(5) and 2(14) of the lease-deed. These questions which obviously arise on these petitions under art. 32 of the Constitution and any direction for quashing the impugned notices must necessarily involve determination of these questions. I regret that my learned brother Venkataramiah, J. proposes to express no opinion on the questions on which, in my view, the Writ Petitions turn. The question at the very threshold is: Whether these petitions under Art.32 are maintainable. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India raised a preliminary objection which he later developed as his main argument in reply. First, there was in the present case no question of infraction of the freedom of the press comprehended within the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) but the enforcement of the Master Plan for Delhi and the Zonal Development Plan framed under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Building) Bye-laws, 1959 may at the most amount to a restriction on the fundamental rights of the petitioners to carry an their business guaranteed under Art. 19(1)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the Union of India, Ministry of Works Housing under cl.5 of the indenture of lease dated March 17, 1958 requiring the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. to show cause why the Union of India should not re-enter upon and take possession of plots nos. 9 and 10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg together with the Express Buildings built thereon for alleged breach of cls. 2(5) and 2(14) of the lease-deed and that of the earlier notice dated March 1, 1980 issued by the Zonal Engineer (Building), City Zone, Municipal Corporation, Delhi requiring them to show cause why the aforesaid buildings should not be demolished under ss. 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 was a direct threat on the freedom of the press guaranteed under Art.19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He contends that the impugned notices were intended and meant to bring about a closure of the Indian Express and not so much for the professed enforcement of laws governing building regulations the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the Master Plan for Delhi and the Zonal Development Plan for D-II area for the Muthura Road Commercial Complex framed thereunder or the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and the Delhi Municipal Corp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... publication of a Hindi newspaper was with the express sanction of the lessor i.e. the Union of India, Ministry of Works Housing accorded to the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. which had duly submitted the building palns for grant of requisite sanction. In the premises, it is submitted that each of the structures was constructed with the express sanction of the lessor, and the Delhi Development Authority granted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 which was the paramount law on the subject. It is urged that the re-entry upon forfeiture of lease or the threatened demolition of the new Express Building with the double basement where the printing press is installed for publication of the Hindi newspaper Jansatta will result in snuffing out the Indian Express as a newspaper altogether although it has the largest combined net sales among all daily newspapers in India. The learned counsel particularly emphasized the fact that the Express Buildings at 9-10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg from the nervecentre of the Express Group of Newspapers in general and the Indian Express in particular as the teleprinter is installed therein. We are informed that the editorials and the leading articles of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , J. in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu Anr., [1974] 2 S.C.R. 348, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (supra) and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India Ltd. Ors., [1979] 3 S.C.R. 1014, and endeavoured to show, to use his own language, that inspite of some literal flourish in the language here and there, they did not and could not depart from the ambit of Art. 14 which deals with the principle of equality embodied in the Article . He was particularly critical of the dectum of Bhagwati, J. in International Airport Authority s case that arbitrariness was the anti thesis of Art. 14 and commented that this would mean that all governmental actions which are not supportable by law were per se violative of Art. 14. I am afraid, it is rather late in the day to question the correctness of the landmark decision in Maneka Gandhi s case and the innovative construction placed by Bhagwati, J. on Art. 14 in the three cases of Royappa, Maneka Gandhi and International Airport Authority (supra), which have evolved new dimensions in judicial process. It is also urged that the argument of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the building in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilding Bye-laws would be totally ineffectual. Such restrictions cannot be placed even though in the interest of the general public as they would not fall within Art.19(2). If, in respect of the building in question, the right to occupy such land is to be considered as comprehended in the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Art.19(1)(a), then inevitable consequence would be that neither the provisions of the Delhi Development Act nor the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act nor the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plans or the Building Bye-laws would be applicable so as to control the building activities of the petitioners. It is said that the irresistible conclusion, therefore, ought to be that the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression of a person under Art.19(1)(a) cannot extend to the continued occupation of a place where such right is derived from a grant or contract. Such a right is certainly not within the content of Art.19(1)(a) or Art. 19(1)(g). It is accordingly argued that the right arising out of a statute or out of a contract cannot be a fundamental right itself. Once contract is entered into or a grant is made, the rights and obligatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dom as the liberty of publication. Central to the concept of a free press is freedom of political opinion and at the core of that freedom lies the right to criticise the Government, because it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that Government remains representation to the will of the people and orderly change is effected. When avenues of political expression are closed, Government by consent of the governed would soon be foreclosed. Such freedom is the foundation of free Government of a free people. Our Government set up being elected limited and responsible we need requisite freedom of any animadversion for our social interest which ordinarily demands free propagation of views. Freedom to think as one likes and to speak as one thinks are as a rule indispensable to the discovery and separate of truth and without free speech, discussion may be futile. Romesh Thappar s case was cited with approval in Express Newspapers (P) Ltd. Anr. v. Union of India Ors. [1959] S.C.R. 12@ 120. There is in the Express Newspapers case an elaborate discussion of the freedom of the press at pp. 118-128 of the Report. The Express Newspapers case and also the case of Sakal P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of permissible limitations on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art.19(1)(a). The test laid down by the Court in Bennett coleman s case is whether the direct and immediate impact of the impugned action is on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) which includes the freedom of the press. It was observed that the restriction on the number of pages, a restraint on circulation and a restraint on advertizements would affect the fundamental right under Art.19(1)(a) on the aspects of propagation, publication and circulation of a newspaper. In repelling the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor-General that the newsprint policy did not violated Art. 19(1)(a) as it does not direct and immediately deal with the right mentioned in Art. 19(1)(a), the Court held that the test of pith and substance of the subject-matter and of direct and incidental effect of legislation are relevant to questions of legislative competence but they are irrelevant to the question of infringement of fundamental rights. The true test, according to the Court, is whether the effect of the impugned action is to take away or abridge fundamental rights. It was sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Property Act, 1882 and as to the power of the Government to impose limitations and restrictions upon grants and other transfers of land made by it or under its authority, the Act was passed to remove such doubts as is clear from the long title and the preamble. The Act contains two sections and provides by s.2 for the exclusion of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and, by s.3 for the exclusion of, any rule of law, statute or enactment of the Legislature to the contrary. Ss.2 and 3 read as follows : 2. Transfer of Property Act, 1882, not to apply to Government grants- Nothing in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, contained shall apply or be deemed over to have applied to any grant or other transfer of land or of any interest therein heretofore made or hereafter to be made by or on behalf of the government to, or in favour of, any person whomsoever; but every such grant and transfer shall be construed and take effect as if the said Act had not been passed. 3. Government grants to take effect according to their tenor- All provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations over contained in any such grant or transfer as aforesaid shall be valid and take effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of re-entry upon forfeiture of lease under c1.5 learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 L DO has placed before us a detailed note explaining the prevailing practice followed by the L DO in such case. The meaning and significance of the note is that the show cause notice under c1.5 served by the L DO is merely a preliminary step affording the lessee an opportunity to settle the terms and conditions with the concurrence of the Ministry of Works Housing, offered by the lessor for condonation of such breach. In the event the lessee fails to comply with such terms the L DO withdraws the terms offered and then calls upon the lessee to remove or remedy the misuse or breach within 30 days. If there is failure on the part of the lessee to remedy such breach within the time allowed, the L DO processes the case for exercise by the lessor i.e. the Union of India of its rights to re-enter upon forfeiture of lease under c1. 5 of the lease-deed. It is said that according to the prevailing practice in respect of such leases i.e. pre 1959 leases of the kind held by petitioner no.1 Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd., the approval of the Lt. Governor is considered a condition precedent to a final o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion to the lessee who had been dispossessed from land granted by the Government by display of force. What had happened was this. One Ramjidas built a dharamsala, a temple and shops appurtenant thereto with the joint family funds on Government land with the permission of the Government. After his death the other members of the family who were in management and possession of those properties were dispossessed by the State Government of Punjab at the instigation of a member of the ruling Congress party. The petitioners applied to the Punjab High Court for issue of appropriate writs under Art. 226 of the Constitution but the petition was dismissed in limine on the preliminary ground that the matter involved disputed questions of fact. An appeal under c1.10 of the Letters Patent was also dismissed on the same ground. The petitioners then moved this Court under Art.32. The State Government sought to justify the action on the ground that the petitioners were merely trespassers as the land on which the dharamsala stood belonged to the State, and the respondents were entitled to use the minimum of force to eject the trespassers. It was also contended that there was a serious dispute on ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly are (1) that the buildings constructed on this piece of Government land did not belong to Government, (2) that the petitioners were in possession and occupation of the buildings and (3) that by the virtue of enactments binding on the Government, the petitioners could be dispossessed, if at all, only in pursuance of a decree of a Civil Court, obtained in proceedings properly initiated. In these circumstances the action of the Government in taking the law into their hands and dispossessing the petitioners by the display of forced exhibits a callous disregard of the normal requirements of the rule of law apart from what might legitimately and reasonably be expected from a Government functioning in a society governed by a Constitution which guarantees to its citizens against arbitrary invasion of the executive of peaceful possession of property. The Court also adverted to the earlier decision in Wazir Chand v. State of H.P., [1955] 1 S.C.R. 408, where it was held that the State or its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can point to some specific rule of law which authorises their acts, and to Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi v. State of Bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on under Art. 226. The view of the High Court was-obviously not sustainable. At the hearing, counsel for the respondents sought an adjournment on the ground that the respondents had in the meanwhile filed a suit against the State Government and further that the parties were negotiating for a settlement. It appears that the court rejected the prayer for adjournment saying that useful purpose would be served by granting any further time and thereafter entered upon the merits. lt held that merely because a suit under 8. 9 of the Specific Relief Act would have been competent, no right can be claimed by the respondents merely on the ground of their possession under Art. 226 unless their right to remain in possession was established against the State Government. There is no reference to the earlier decision of the Constitution Bench in Bishan Das case nor does the judgment lay down any contrary principle. It seems to me that the observations of Gajendragadkar, J. were merely in the nature of obiter in Ramchandra Dev s case and nothing really turns on the observations made by him. The decision in Ramchandra Dev s case appears to be in per incuriam. Even in cases involving purely contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings constructed by Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. with the sanction of the lessor i.e. the Union of India, Ministry of Works Housing on plots 8. 9 and 10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg demised on perpetual lease by registered lease-deed dated March 17, 1958 can, by no process of reasoning, be regarded as public premises belonging to the Central Government under 8. 2(e). That being so, there is no question of the lessor applying for eviction of the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. under s.2(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 nor has the Estate Officer any authority or jurisdiction to direct their eviction under sub-s.(2) thereof by summary process. Due process of Law in a case like the present necessarily implies the filing of suit by the lessor i.e. the Union of India, Ministry of Works Housing for the enforcement of the alleged right of reentry, if any upon forfeiture of lease due to breach of the terms of the lease. Nothing stated here should be construed to mean that the Government has not the power to take recourse to the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 where admittedly there 18 unauthorized cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f commissioner of Delhi to exercise any of the functions of the lessor under the lease-deed. In reply, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, the Lt. Governor, advanced a two fold submission; firstly, the Lt. Governor is the alter ego of the President of India and not a mere formal or titular head of the Union Territory of Delhi, and in the connection he referred to the constitutional history of the Union Territory of Delhi. In support of his contention that the designation of the Administrator as the Chief Commissioner of Delhi under both the Government of India Acts of 1919 and 1935 or as the Lt. Governor under the Constitution was a mere matter of nomenclature, the learned counsel referred to the provisions relating to the powers, functions and duties of the Chief Commissioner or the Lt. Governor, as the case may be, which remained the same. In his words, the Lt. Governor is the eyes and ears of the President in relation to such territory which he is called upon to Administer on behalf of the President. One of the primary functions of the Lt. Governor, as the Administrator, is to be aware of facts brought to his notice and therefore respondent no.2 could not have tu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... litan Council were, however, exercisable by the Chief Commissioner and necessarily by the Lt. Governor as the appointed agent or the nominee of the President. It was submitted that the Lt. Governor continues to have certain defined functions, apart from his function as the executive head of the Delhi Administration. As an incumbent of an important public office of the Lt. Governor, he is intended to discharge diverse functions on behalf of the President of India as his agent in relation to the Union Territory of Delhi. In support of his contention, reliance was placed on the interpretation of s.2(3) and s.36 of the Act. It was urged that the office of the Land Development Officer was under the direct administrative control of the Chief Commissioner A as the Administrator until 1959. The Land Development Officer administered nazul lands at that time as he does now. Although this was a subject excluded from the competence of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi under the proviso to s.21 of the Act, the authority of the Chief Commissioner as the Administrator over the Land Development Officer and over the administration of nazul lands as a reserved subject was kept under the admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Development Officer came into being as a separate organisation under the administrative control of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. Under 8.94 of the Government of India Act, 1935, it was provided that Delhi would continue to be a Chief Commissioner s Province. A Chief Commissioner s Province was to be administered by the Governor-General acting to such extent as he thought fit through a Chief Commissioner to be appointed by him in his discretion. S. 94 of the Government of India Act, 1935 provided as follows : 94: Chief Commissioners Provinces : 1. The following shall be the Chief Commissioners Provinces, that is to say, the heretofore existing Chief Commissioners Provinces of British Baluchistan, Delhi, Ajmer-Merwara, Coorg and the Andaman and Microbe Islands, the area known as Panth Piploda, and such other Chief Commissioners Provinces as may be created under this Act. 2. Aden shall cease to be part of India. 3. A Chief Commissioner s Province shall be administered by the Governor-General acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through a Chief Commissioner, to be appointed by him in his discretion. Under s.100(4) of the Government of India Act, 1935, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tate or the group of States shall be administered n all respects as if the State or the group of states were a Chief Commissioner s Province: (b) that the State or the group of States shall be administered in all respects as if the State or the group of States formed a part of a Governor s or a Chief Commissioner S Province specified in the Order. Provided that if any Order made under clause (b) of A this sub-section affects a governor s Province, the Governor-General shall before making such Order ascertain the views of the Government of that Province both with respect to the proposal to make the order and with respect to the provisions to be inserted therein. (2) Upon the issue of an order under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of this section, all the provisions of this Act applicable to the Chief Commissioner s Province of Delhi shall apply to the State or the group of States in respect of which the Order is made. (3) The Governor-General may in making an order under sub-section (1) of this section give such supple mental, incidential and consequential directions (including directions as to representation in the Legislature) as he may deem necessary. (4) In this sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 21. Extent of Legislative Power (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Legislative Assembly of a State may make laws for the whole or any part of the State with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or in the Concurrent List.: Provided that the Legislative Assembly of the State of Delhi shall not have power to make laws with respect to any of the following matters, namely :- (a) ********** (b) ********** (c) *********** (D) lands and buildings vested in or in the possession of the Union which are situated in Delhi or in New Delhi including all rights in or over such lands and buildings, the collection of rents, therefrom and the transfer and alienation thereof ; (2) Nothing in sub-s.(1) shall derogate from the power conferred on Parliament by the Constitution to make laws with respect to any matter for a State or any part thereof. Art. 239(1) of the Constitution was amended by the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956 w.e.f. November 1, 1956 and it now reads : 239. Administration of Union Territories - (1) Save as otherwise provided by Parliament by law, every Union Territory shall be administered by the President a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , by virtue of any order made in pursuance of Article 239 or as the case may be, Article 243 of the Constitution as in force immediately before the 1st day of November, 1956 or any other power under the Constitution, any powers and functions were immediately before that day, the powers and functions (a) the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Himachal (b)the Chief Commissioner of the State of Delhi, Manipur or Tripura and (c) the Chief Commissioner of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, such powers and functions shall, on and after the said day, be exercised and discharged respectively by- (i) the Lieutenant Governor of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, (ii) the Chief Commissioner of the Union Territory of Delhi, Manipur or Tripura, and 495 (iii) the Chief commissioner of the Andaman and Nicobar Island, subject to the like control by the President, as were exercisable by him before the said day over the Lieutenant Governor or as the case may be, the Chief Commissioner referred to in clause (a),(b) or (c). (No.F.19/22/56-SRI) HARI SHARMA. JT. Secy. ON the same day, by Section 130 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956, the Government of Part States Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the President for the enforcement of the terms ant conditions thereof. On September 7, 1966 the Administrator appointed by the President in relation to the Union Territory of Delhi who hithertofore had been designated as the Chief Commissioner was re-designated as the Lt. Governor of Delhi. Accordingly, the President on September 7, 1966 issued another order in terms of Art. 239(1) of the Constitution which provides as follows : MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIR NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 7th Sept., 1966.S.O. 2709 - In pursuance of clause (1) of article 239 of the Constitution and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the President hereby directs as follows Where by virtue of-any order made in pursuance of article 239 any powers and functions were, immediately before the 7th September, 1966 the powers and functions of the Chief Commissioner of the Union Territory of Delhi, such powers and functions shall, on and after the said day, be exercised and discharged by the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi, subject to the like control by the President, as was exercisable by him before the said day over the Chief Commissioner- (No.41/2/66-Delhi.) HARI SHARMA, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the fourteenth day of January, 1887. Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel to the decision of Mohd. Maqbool Damanoo v. State of Jammu kashmir, [1972] 2 S.C.R. 1014, where a Constitutional Bench held that under 8. 26(2) of the Jammu Kashmir Constitution, as amended, even though the Governor of Jammu Kashmir was not elected as the Sadar-i-Riyasat but the mode of appointment would not make a Governor anytheless a successor to the Sadar-i-Riyasat because both were the head of the State and therefore the executive power of the State vested in them both. In that connection, the Court referred to 8.18 of the General Clauses Act and held that the Governor being a successor of the office of the Sadar-i- Riyasat was entitled to exercise all the powers and functions of the Sadar-i-Riyasat. We do not see the relevance of the decision in Mohd. Maqbool s case to the question before us since the Lt. Governor of Delhi is neither the successor of the Chief Commissioner nor can s.l8 of the General Clauses Act override the constitutional requirements of Art.239(1) laying down that the Lt. Governor shall exercise only such powers as are entrusted to him by the President. The que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o necessarily included powers and functions which were a necessary concomitant of the office. Learned counsel contends that the office of the Administrator under Art.239(1) is the office of an agent and representative of the President. It is the office of the Head of the Administration in relation to the Union territory. He is not merely a formal or titular head but an effective and executive head. The office is both formal and functional, and the Union Territory is administered by the Union Executive through the Lt. Governor. In the ultimate analysis, the Lt. Governor has to be the eyes and ears as well as the limbs of the President in the Union Territory which he is called upon to administer on behalf of the President. He is also to keep in touch with every situation and to take into account the representations and complaints in exercising the powers and discharging the functions of his office. In these circumstances, the Lt.Governor was entitled to see whether there was any definite matter of public importance which might eventually call for a detailed administrative or statutory inquiry, either in respect of the conduct of the officer of the Delhi Development Authority o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acting to such extent as he thinks fit, through an Administrator to be appointed by him with such designation as he may specify. In September, 1951 an Act known as the Government of Part States Act, 1951 was passed by Parliament. It was a law enacted by Parliament under Art.240(1) to provide for the creation of Legislative Assemblies, Council of Ministers and Councils of Advisors for Part States. Sub-s.(3) of 8.2 provided that any reference in the Act to the Chief Commissioner shall, in relation to a State for the time being administered by the President through a Lt. Governor be construed as a reference to the Lt.Governor. Cl.(2) of Art.240 provided that such law shall not be deemed to be an amendment of the Constitution fr the purposes of Art. 368 notwithstanding that it contained any provision which amended or had the effect of amending the Constitution. S.21 of the Act invested the Legislative Assemblies of such Part States with powers of legislation with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or in the Concurrent List with the reservation contained tn the proviso thereto that the Legislative Assembly of the State of Delhi Shall not have power to make law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chief Commissioner in respect of that province. In our opinion, such order comes within the purview of Article 372 of the Constitution and being a law in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution would continue to be in force under clause (1) of the Article. Agreeably to this view it must also be held that such order is capable of adaptation to bring provisions under cl.(2) of Article 372 and this is precisely what has been done by the Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950. Paragraph 26 of the Order runs as follows : Where any rule, order or other instrument was in force under any provision of the Government of India Act, 1935, or under any Act amending or supplementing that Act, immediately before the appointed day, and such provision is re-enacted with or without modifications in the Constitution, the said rule, order or instrument shall, so far as applicable, remain in force with the necessary modifications as from the appointed day as if it were a rule, order or instrument of the appropriate kind duly made by the appropriate authority under the said provision of the Constitution, and may be varied or revoked accordingly. Thus the order made under s. 94(3) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Union, allotment of Government lands in Delhi, administration of Government estates under the control of the Ministry of Works Housing and the administration of the Land Development Office, are matters exclusively vested in the Ministry of Works Housing vide Entries 1, 6 and 23(1) in the Second Schedule under the head Ministry of Works Housing . In the light of the said directive, as further confirmed by the constitutionally enacted regulations, the power over the allotment of nazul lands, administration of leases in Delhi and the control and administration of Land Development Office in particular and the property of the Union in general are subjects vested solely under the control of the Ministry of Works Housing. In the premises, by such transfer of authority, the Chief Commissioner of Delhi and necessarily his successor, the Lt. Governor, became bereft of his powers to control and administer the lease and any attempt by respondent no.2 set up a claim that the Lt. Governor is the authority empowered to administer the lease is wholly frivolous and untenable and must be rejected. Whether the impugned Executive action was mala fide and politically motivated. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents had ample time to file their affidavits in reply, none of the respondents except respondent no.5,, the Lt. Governor of Delhi and respondent no.5,, Land Development Officer have chosen to deny the allegations. The counter-affidavit of respondent no.2 purporting to be on behalf of all the respondents is that the allegations made by the petitioners in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 are not relevant to the matter in issue. In C.I. Rowjee Ors. v. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, [1964] 4 S.C.R. 330, the Court in a matter arising out of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 where certain allegations against the Minister went uncontroverted, had occasion to administer a word of caution. Where mala fide are alleged, it is necessary that the person against whom such allegations are made should come forward with an answer refuting or denying such allegations. For otherwise such allegations remain unrebutted and the Court would in such a case be constrained to accept the allegations so remaining unrebutted and unanswered on the test of probability. That precisely is the position in the present case, m the absence of any counteraffidavit by any of the respondents. One should have thought th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses the courts have still asserted jurisdiction to determine whether the authority has endeavoured to act in good faith in accordance with the prescribed purpose. In most instances the reservation for the case of bad faith is hardly more than a formality. But when it can be established, the courts will be prepared to set aside a judgment or order procured or made fraudulently despite the existence of a generally worded formula purporting to exclude judicial review. Bad faith is here understood by the learned author to mean intentional usurpation of, power motivated by considerations that are incompatible with the discharge of public responsibility. In requiring statutory powers to be exercised reasonably, in good faith, and on correct grounds, the Courts are still working within the bounds of the familiar principle of ultra vires. The Court assumes that Parliament cannot have intended to authorize unreasonable action which is therefore ultra vires and void. This is the express basis of the reasoning in many well-known cases, on the subject. A necessary corollary is that, as usual throughout administrative law, we are concerned only with acts of legal power i.e. acts which, if va ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n alien purpose other than the one for which the power is conferred in mala fide use of that power. Same is the position when an order is made for a purpose other than that which finds place in the order. The ulterior or alien purpose clearly speaks of the misuse of the power and it was observed as early as in 1904 by Lord Lindley in General Assembly of Free Church of Scotland v. Overtown, L.R. [1904] A.C. 515, that there is a condition implied in this as well as in other instruments which create powers, namely, that the powers shall be used bona fide for the purpose for which they are conferred . It was said that Warrington, C.J., in Short v. Poole Corporation, L.R. [1926] Ch. D.66, that : No public body can be regarded as having statutory authority to act in bad faith or from corrupt motives, and any action purporting to be of that body, but proved to be committed in bad faith or from corrupt motives, would certainly be held to be inoperative. In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, [1956] 1 Q.B. 702 at pp.712-13, Lord Denning, LJ. said : No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustify all his action throughout the affair as the Lt. Governor. As the hearing progressed, on being putwise on the legal issues, respondent no.2 filed an additional affidavit trying to refute the allegations of personal bias and animosity on his part. As already stated, respondent no.1 put a supplementary affidavit of M.K. Mukherjee, Secretary, Ministry of Works Housing which instead of meeting the specific allegations made by the petitioners, avers that they were wholly irrelevant and that the Union of India adopts the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no.2. The submissions advanced at the Bar by learned counsel appearing for the Union of India were wholly inconsistent with the stand taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavits. The learned counsel made no attempt to refute the charge that the impugned notices were wholly mala fide and politically motivated. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that during the period of Emergency, the Indian Express had displayed exemplary courage in exposing the authoritarian trend of the Government of the day. He further contended that the impugned notices constitute an act of personal vendetta against the Express Grou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the Chief Secretary and two other officers of the Delhi Administration to make an investigation into the circumstances under which the sanction was granted by the then Minister for Works Housing and the alleged breaches committed by the petitioners in the construction of the Express Buildings. The learned counsel contends that the so-called inquiry directed by respondent no.2 into the affairs of the Union of India, Ministry of Works Housing was nothing short of inquisition into the functioning of the previous Government at the Centre and particularly that of Minister for Works Housing. On the same day, the Zonal Engineer (Building), City Zone, Municipal Corporation, presumably at the behest of respondent no.2 served a notice on petitioner no.1 Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. to show cause why action should not be taken for demolition of the A Express Buildings under ss. 43 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. Three days after i.e. On March 4, 1980 a second press release was issued from the Raj Nivas, the official residence of respondent no.2 and sent by a special courier to all newspaper offices to justify his action in initiating an inquiry and the mode t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he residual or governmental functions that remain after the legislative and judicial functions are taken away. m e executive power with respect to the great departments of the Government are exercisable by the Ministers of the concerned departments by virtue of Rules of Business issued by the President under Art. 77(3). For purposes of the present controversy, the functionary who took action and presumably on whose instructions the impugned notices were issued was no one than the Lt. Governor of Delhi who, according to learned counsel for respondent no.1., could not usurp the powers and functions of the Union of India in relation to the property of the Union and therefore had no functions in relation to the lease in question. It seems that the Minister for Works Housing was taking his orders from respondent no.2. The dominant purpose which actuated respondent no.2 in initiating governmental action was not 80 much for implementation of the provisions cf the Master Plan or the Zonal Development Plans framed under the Delhi Development Act or the observance of the relevant Municipal Bye-laws under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, but to use these provisions for an alien purpos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial Congress candidate. As a result, various administrative agencies began roving and fishing inquiries into the affairs of the Express Group of Companies. On more occasions then one, matters relating to petitioner no.3 Ram Nath Goenka and the Express Group of Companies were discussed in Parliament. After the Congress (R) secured overwhelming majority in the 1971 Parliamentary elections, the Express Group of Companies and petitioner no.3 had to wage a constant battle for survival on various fronts and against various onslaughts. The animosity of the Congress (R) Government towards the petitioners intensified after the Gujarat and Bihar Movements gathered strength. Because of the close association of petitioner no.3 Ram Nath Goenka with the late Shri Jayaprakash Narayan, efforts were made to secure hie cooperation to persuade the late Shri Jayaprakash Narayan to withdraw from the Bihar Movement. His refusal to intercede on behalf of the Government led to further inquiries by which both he and the Express Group of companies were sought So be pressurized and persecuted. The White Paper on the Misuse of Mass Media during the Internal Emergency issued by the Government of India in Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that obviously one of the tasks entrusted to respondent no.2 as the Lt. Governor of Delhi was to discipline the press by demolition of the Express Buildings. I refrain from expressing any opinion on that aspect but it is quite evident that no action was contemplated against the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. by any of the respondents prior to February 17, 1980. Respondent no.2 upon assumption of his office as the Lt. Governor of Delhi on that day immediately set on a course of action against the Indian Express which culminated in the issue of the impugned notices. It cannot be doubted that his initiative to call for the files from the Municipal Corporation relating to the construction of the new Express Building was an action of his own not provoked by anyone, much less at the instance of respondent no.1, the Union of India, Ministry of Works Housing. The sequence of events set in motion immediately after his assumption of office as the Lt. Governor have already been set out in detail which demonstrate the extent to which and the keenness with which he pursued the matter. It would appear that the entire administrative machinery was geared into action by respondent no.2 and he ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 36,000 per acre as against the prevailing rate of ₹ 1.25 000 per acre for construction of building. The note was put up by Rangaswami to the Land Development officer and was also seen by tho Joint Secretary (Delhi Division) and the Secret Ministry of Work Housing. In this note, Rangaswami further pointed out that additional premium and additional ground rent would at all events to recovered from the lessee together with interest. The learned counsel accordingly contended that it was on the basis of this that the impugned notice was issued by the Engineer Officer on March 10, 1980 and said that it was worthwhile mentioning that till then the report of the Three-Member Committee was not before the Central Government, nor WAS there any coo communication in that behalf from the Lt. Governor. The report of the Committee was itself dated March 12, 1980 and a copy thereof was forwarded by the Lt. Governor on March 14, 1980. It was therefore urged that the impugned notice by the Engineer Officer purporting to act on behalf of the lessor i.e. the union of India, Ministry of Works Housing was not based either on the report of the Three-Member Committee obtained by the Lt. Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n behalf of the lessor i.e. the Union of India, Ministry of Works Housing in relation to the lease. Further, the contention was that respondent no.2 as the Lt. Governor was well within his rights (1) in calling for and making perusal of the respective files from the Ministry of Works Housing, Delhi Development Authority and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi pertaining to the construction of the new Express Building with an increased FAR of 360, (2) in constituting a Three-Member Committee to inquire into the circumstances relating to the grant of sanction by the then Minister for Works Housing and to take necessary steps as regards the unauthorised construction of the new Express Building, and (3) in forwarding the report of the Three-Member Committee to the concerned authority, meaning the Minister for Works Housing for taking necessary steps. It was contended that the petitioners have made wild, reckless and baseless allegations against respondent no.2 merely because he directed an investigation into the affairs. In any event, he contended that this was a case of transferred malice and the question of mala fides could not be decided without impleading the late Prime Mini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed the issue of the impugned notice dated March 10, 1980 by the Engineer Officer directing a forfeiture of the lease. The facts speak for themselves. M.K.. Mukherjee, Secretary, Ministry of Works Housing in his supplementary affidavit avers that the impugned notice dated March 10, 1980 was issued by the Engineer Officer, Land Development Office on the basis of press reports i.e. reports of the press conference called by respondent no.2 on March 4, 1980. The sudden spurt of activity on the part of Rangaswami Additional Land Development Officer calling for a report and the file ant the Engineer Officer directing that the case be put up with a detailed note immediately on March 5, 1980 is a circumstance which speaks for itself. It followed upon the press conference called by respondent no.2 on March 4, 1980 after A the Zonal Engineer (Building), City Zone, Municipal Corporation, Delhi had already issued a notice on March 1, 1980 requiring Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. to show cause why the double basement of the new Express Building where the printing press was installed should not be demolished under ss. 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. These circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Personnel Administrative Reforms, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India. Hence, the Minister for Works Housing was and is the ultimate authority responsible for the following items of work viz. the property of the Union, town and country planning, Delhi Development Authority, Master Plan of Delhi, Administration of Delhi Development Act, 1957, Land Development Office dealing with the administration of nazul landsin the Union Territory of Delhi. It is common ground that the Press Enclave on Bahadurshah Zafar Marg otherwise known as the Mathura Road Commercial Complex is not a development area within the meaning of s.2(3)(3) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. Admittedly, the Master Plan does not prescribe any FAR for the Mathura Road Commercial Area. In the Master Plan at p.50 the permitted uses in the Use Zone C-2, namely, the zone in which the press area falls are specifically mentioned and it is clear therefrom that the generally permitted uses do not include Newspaper and printing presses. The business of printing and publishing of newspapers and installation of printing press is permissible only if such user is allowed by competent authority after special app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequence. By virtu of the permission granted by the DDA to the sanction Plan of the new Express Building with an increased FAR of 360 with a double basement beyond the plinth area for installation of the printing press, the same must prevail. Under 6. 41(3) of the Act, the Central Government through the Ministry of Works Housing had certainly the authority to issue a direction to the Delhi Development Authority to examine the question as to whether the petitioners could be granted permission to construct the Express Building with an increased FAR of 360 with a double basement for installation of the Printing press. and to grant Permission therefore. The Floor Area Ratio, commonly known as FAR is the restriction on the number of floors in a building with reference to the plot area. Part of Chapter II of the Master Plan contains the Zoning Regulations which form an integral part of the Master Plan which indicate the land use permissible in various zones and the density, coverage, floor area ratio and setbacks for various types of development. Paragraph 2 has divided the Union Territory of Delhi for purposes of the zoning regulations into twenty-four use zones. Each use zone ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Mathura Road Commercial Complex. This is factually wrong. The Master Plan admittedly does not refer to the press enclave situate on the Mathura Road commercial area, nor does such area fall within the already built-up commercial areas i.e. the walled city of Old Delhi, as set out in the Master Plan at pp.60-61. Since the attempt of the respondents is to bring the press area within he FAR coverages prescribed for the already built-up commercial areas in the walled city of Old Delhi, it is of utmost importance for a proper understanding of the case to set out the relevant portion : IV. Commercial and Retail (b) F.A.R, coverages etc. for already built-up Commercial areas in the Walled City like Chandni Chowk, etc. (List given below) : In such cases, coverages permissible would be as applicable in the existing building bye-laws of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, e.g., 80 per cent on the ground floor and 70 per cent on the first floor and 80 on, with 150 F.A.R. for a twostorey construction, 200 F.A.R. for a three-storey construction, 250 F.A.R. for a four-storey construction and 80 on, provided that the F.A.R. will not exceed 300. List of already built-up commercia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cording to building bye-laws to built-up areas. It would be seen the statement is prefaced by the word similarly and thereafter the word also appears. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 the Union of India contends that the use of the word similarly can only mean that Mathura Road commercial area is also fully developed like Asaf Ali Road commercial area, and further that the statement that buildings on Mathura Road have been constructed according to the building bye-laws applying to built-up areas means that it was fully commercialized and had been built-up according to the relevant bye-laws which regulates and control the construction of commercially built-up area and therefore the relevant bye-law applicable would be bye-law no.25(2) (IV) (B) of the Municipal Bye-laws which puts a ceiling on FAR at 300. He tries a draw support, for this contention from what next follows in the Zonal Development Plan where it is stated Only two areas, namely, circular Road and Minto Roads commercial areas are to be developed . It is said that the significance of the word only can mean nothing than that like the other similar areas, namely, Asaf Ali Road commercial area and M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tionate payment of premium. It 18 therefore evident that although in the Zonal Development Plan for D-II area, Asaf Ali Road commercial area is described as fully developed with no room for expansion, the FAR of which is admittedly 400, there could be still a further increase in FAR subject to payment of premium. This could only be under the provisions of the Zonal Development Plan for D-II area and therefore it must logically follow that the FAR prescribed in the Zonal Development Plan for Mathura Road commercial area where the press enclave is situate is 400. It is of some significance that the aforesaid advertisement had been issued by none else than P. Chakravarty, one of the members of the Three- Member Committee. It is regrettable that the Three-Member Committee should have purposely misled the authorities by describing the press area on Bahadurshah Zafar Marg as an already built-up area which relates to the walled city of Old Delhi for which the FAR beyond 300 was not permissible. The press area is in Mathura Road commercial area which is not far from Asaf Ali Road commercial area. It not only falls in the same D-II area but is treated as part of a complex of four comme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeded on the basis that the FAR in the Press Area was 300. The assertion that every officer referred to only an FAR 300 for the Press Area is based upon the TCPO s note dated April 14, 1978 mentioned in Three Member Committee s report in which it is specifically stated : As per Master Plan, FAR 300 in Commercial area does not exist for any area in Delhi whatsoever. As stated above, this was factually wrong being contrary to the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan for the D-II area. It is also contrary to the fact that: (1) In the Asaf Ali Road commercial area, plot. are of FAR 400 and ground coverage of more than 90%, (2) In Bhikaji Cama Place plots have been auctioned for the construction of Five Star Hotel with an FAR of mo re than 500; (3) Vikas Minar, the Delhi Development Authority s building is constructed with an FAR exceeding 400 situate in Use Zone : Government and semi- Government Offices , for which the permissible FAR is only 150. There is no material on record to substantiate that there is no specific rule or bye-law laying down FAR ceiling for the Press Area was 300. In fact, The Union of India in the very first affidavit unequivocally admits this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bye-laws 21 and 22. Bye-law 21 (1) reads : 21. Maximum height of buildings :- (1) Except with the permission in writing of the commissioner, and subject to the provisions contained in bye-Law 19, no building shall be erected or raised to a greater height than seventy feet as measured from the level of the centre of the adjacent portion of the nearest street. Note : This bye-law shall be applicable only to those buildings which are not otherwise governed by FAR wherever specified in the Master Plan. This bye-law restricts the height of a building to 70 feet. Now, this height is to be measured from the centre of the adjacent portion of the nearest street . Admittedly, as is clear from the sanction plan, the height of the new Express Building is about 47 feet (see section plan of the sanction plan: 1 = 8 ft.), the adjacent portion which is the service road is on level with the plinth of the additional construction. Taking Mathura Road as the nearest street , the level of Mathura Road stretches from 2 ft. to 5 ft. higher than the plinth level of the additional construction. In any view of the matter, the additional construction could therefore be permissible if it did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declaration that the whole area was a commercial area and that it was fully commercialized and the relevant bye-law applicable to the Mathura Road commercial area was and is bye-law 25(2)(IV-B) which puts a ceiling on FAR at 300. It is next contended that since the Mathura Road commercial area was a fully developed and commercial area built up according to the relevant bye-laws, it has not been declared to be a development area under s.12(1) of the Act. Sub-s.(2) thereof forbids the Delhi Development Authority to undertake or carry out development of any land in an area which is not a development area and therefore the matter falls to be governed by sub-s.(3) which forbids development of land except with the approval or sanction of the local authority i.e. the Municipal Building Bye-laws applicable to built up areas which evidently refers to bye-law 25(2)(IV-B). The relevant provisions of bye-law 25 provide as follows : 25. Permissible covered area : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these byelaws no building shall be erected or allowed to be erected in contravention of the Master Plan or any Zonal Development Plan. (2) The following provisions shall apply to bui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under bye-law 26 and therefore only bye-law 25(2)(IV-B) which limits the FAR to 300 is applicable in this case. The contention overlooks the note appended to bye-law 26 which reads: This bye-law shall be applicable only to buildings covered by bye-law 25(2) (IV-B). Bye-law 25(2)(IV-B) only applies to : already built-up commercial areas as indicated in the Master Plan or such other areas as may be declared as commercial areas by the appropriate authority from time to time . As already stated, the expression already built-up commercial area as defined in the Master Plan at pp.60-61 refers to the walled city of Delhi like Chandni Chowk, etc. The list of already built-up commercial areas admittedly does not include the press area on the Mathura Road. The matter can also to viewed from another angle. At the time of construction of buildings in the press area, there were no restrictions as to the FAR along the Mathura Road and the only restriction on construction of such buildings was that the allottees of the plots in the press area should construct buildings upto a height of 60 ft. me petitioners constructed the old Express Building to the east of the sewer line with an FAR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Road had been revised on the terms set out therein. The revised allotment was subject, among others, to the following conditions : 1. An area of 2740 sq. yards to the west of the pipeline was allotted on a premium @ ₹ 36,000 per acre plus 2.5% annual ground rent thereon. The said area was to be maintained as an open space i.e. lying vacant for parking space. 2. The remaining area of 2965 sq. yards to the east of the pipeline was settled on a premium @ ₹ 1,25,000 per acre plus 2.5% annual ground rent thereon. The Central Government reserved to themselves the right to divert the sewer line passing through the leasehold premises. The effect of the revised terms as per Ambegaokar s letter was that the area to the east of the sewer line measuring 2965 sq. yards was treated as buildable plot and the remaining area of 2740 sq.yards treated as non-buildable plot. In respect of the buildable plot there was admittedly 100% coverage with five floors i.e. an assumed FAR of 500 as in those days there were no building bye-laws or restrictions providing for an FAR. But actually the old Express Building was built with an FAR of 260. Significantly, a separate ground rent a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be taken for demolition of the structures set out therein under as 343 and 344 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The objected portions of construction in terms of the impugned show cause notice are as under : (1) Construction of an upper basement without sanction or, in other words, a working platform or installations of the machinery; and (2) Unauthorized construction of an excess basement beyond sanction. The three alleged unauthorized constructions are : (a) A triangular pit dug in front of the building; (b) A left working platform in the basement; and (c) The basement beyond the plinth area of the new building. Each of these structures was specifically approved by the Delhi Development Authority as per usual norms . Section 53(3)(a) of the Delhi Development Act provides, inter alia, that : 53(3). Notwithstanding anything contained in such other law - (a) when permission for development in respect of any Land has been obtained under this Act such development shall not be deemed to be unlawfully undertaken or carried out by reason only of the fact that permission, approval or sanction required under such other law for such devel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ious multi-storeyed buildings like Kanchunjunga and the Hindustan Times buildings. The Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. further allege that they were advised by the firebrigade authorities to construct a static tank. It would, therefore, appear that excess basement is in two parts : (1)So much of the excess basement as was the result of subsidence of 8000 sq. ft. of land caused by bursting of a part of the sewer line while it was being shifted. The petitioner no. 1 built supporting walls which became a storage tank and it covers an area of 4,500 sq. ft. (2) Underground tunnel, meant for use as a passage for labour and movement of news-print from the old to the new Express Building and it measures 450 sq. ft. The Municipal Corporation is treating this storage tank as an unauthorized construction. It was got deleted from the sanctioned plan because in the original plan there was a provision for a smaller water tank. Ultimately, the objection is to a bigger storage tank. There is no dispute that all the structures are below the ground. The main purpose of the upper basement i.e. a working platform measuring 6000 sq. ft. was meant to work the printing press. Without the w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... measures. It was, however, asserted that the recommendation of the Chief Fire Officer was not according to building byelaws and, therefore, not binding on the Municipal Corporation. The proposal for the construction of a water storage tank in a corner of the building covering 550 sq. ft. was accordingly got deleted. It was also pointed out that the water storage tank as constructed measuring 4095 sq. ft. was eight times bigger than the one recommended by the Chief fire Officer. I am afraid, I am unable to appreciate this line of reasoning. If a water tank of this magnitude was permitted to be constructed, the water stored in it would be sufficient for the entire Press Enclave at Bahadurshah Zafar Marg. I fail to see any rational basis for the objection raised. The Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. have at a considerable cost, constructed a large enough water storage tank to serve the entire Press Enclave and if it is sufficient to serve all the buildings on Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, the Municipal Corporation should, indeed, thank the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. for making provision for the protection of all the buildings. In the recent past, the devastating fire which engulfed many mult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... machines and the printed matter is collected at the top i.e. On the second basement for delivery to vans and trucks at the street level. The Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. have produced photographs which show the two levels of the machines that are to be installed in the basement. One has, therefore, to approach the machines at the bottom to feed the news-print in and at shoulder level to receive the printed papers as well as to service the machines. All modern printing presses require a slab or a working platform where the printing paper is received and from which the machine can be served. The working platform is a necessary appurtenance which is incidental to and necessary for, the machines to be installed by them. They further allege that in the Indraprastha Estate itself, buildings of the National Herald, the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Times of India and Milap, amongst others, have were than one floor beneath the ground floor. The construction of these structures has been specifically sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation. They have placed on record, the sanctioned plans of the Times of India and the National Herald allowing them to construct such a working platf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioners have alleged that in the Indraprastha Estate itself, buildings of the National Herald, Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Times of India and Milap, amongst others, have more than one floor beneath the ground floor. The construction of these structures has been specifically sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation. The petitioners contend that the slab of the working platform constructed by them does not fall within the meaning of the expression covered area in sub-cl.(22) of cl.2 of the Building Bye-laws, since it is below the plinth level. There is, therefore, no addition to the covered area at all. The Delhi Development Authority which granting sanction clearly stated that the area of the basement would not be included in the calculation of F.A.R. The petitioners also contend that the erection of such a platform does not fall within the meaning of the expression to erect a building which is defined in a. 331 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act to mean to erect or re-erect a building and hence no sanction is required for the same. The Delhi Development Authority specifically approved construction of double basement as per the plan approved by it and in te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ks not only two basements have been permitted but also a semibasement and a service floor without reckoning any one of them for computation of FAR. Further, the advertisements issued by the Delhi Development Authority for auctioning hotel sites at Bhikaji Cama Place and New Friends Colony show that the double basements are permissible and have, in fact, been permitted in the case of these hotels. It is urged that the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. have no right to construct the upper basement particularly when the Corporation refused to accord sanction to it and that, in any event, it was not such an unavoidable necessity as to break the law. It is said that the second basement, conveniently called, the working platform for the operation of flouncing of the printed newspaper is just an afterthought. He argued that even i some receiving floor may perhaps be necessary to receive the printed newspaper from the machine, it could be achieved by locating the machines on a suitable pedestal or by laying the floor of the basement in such a manner as to discharge the newspapers on the ground floor. It is difficult to conceive how the huge printing press with a height of 24 ft. could be placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith an increased FAR of 360 and a double basement in conformity with the permission granted by the lessor i.e. the Union of India, Ministry of Works Housing with the concurrence of the Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority on the amalgamation of plots nos. 9 and 10, as ordered by the Vice-Chairman by his order dated October 21, 1978 as on special appeal as envisaged in the Master Plan having been directed, the lessor is clearly precluded from contending that the order of the Minister was illegal, improper or invalid by application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In 1948, Denning, J. in Robertson v. Minister of Pensions, L.R., [19491 l K.B. 227, laid the foundation to the applicability of promissory estoppel in public law. As Prof. de Smith in his Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 4th edition at p.103 observes : There is a growing body of authority, attributable in large part to the efforts of Lord Denning, to the effect that in some circumstances when public bodies and officers, in their dealing with a citizen, take it upon themselves to assume authority on a matter concerning him, the citizen is entitled to rely on their having the authority that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re a Government department wrongfully assumes authority to perform some legal act, the citizen is entitled to assume that it has that authority, and he dismissed the contention that estoppels do not bind the Crown by saying that that doctrine has long been exploded and that the Crown cannot fetter its future executive action. Professor Wade points out that the proposition about wrongful assumption of authority evoked by Denning , J. was immediately repudiated by the House of Lords in a later case in which Denning, LJ. had again put it forward in Howell v. Falmouth Boat Construction Company Ltd., L.R. [1951] A.C. 837, it is beyond the scope of this judgment to enter into a discussion as to how far Denning J s dictum can still be regarded as part of the common law in England. But there appears to be a school of thought in India laying down that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to the Government except under certain circumstances. In Union of India Ora. v. Indo Afghan Agencies Ltd [1968] 2 S.C.R. 366, Shah, J. speaking for the Court stated with approval the following observations of Denning, J. in Robertson s case : The Crown cannot escape by saying that estoppel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t act out-side the scope of their authority. The doctrine of ultra vise will in that event come into operation and the government cannot be held bound by the unauthorized acts of his officers. It is not necessary for purposes of this judgement to solve the apparent conflict between the decision of the Bhagwati , J. in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills case as to the applicability of the doctrine of estoppel for preventing the Government from discharging its functions under the law. In public law, the most obvious limitation and doctrine of estoppel is that it cannot be evoked 80 as to give an overriding power which it does not in law possess. In other words, no estoppel can legitimate action which is ultra vires. Another limitation is that the principle of estoppel does not operate at the level of Government policy. Estoppels have however been allowed to operate against public authority in minor matters of formality where no question of ultra vires arises : Wade, Administrative law, 5th edition, pp. 233-34. The principles laid down in Maritime Elec. Co. v. General Dairies Ltd., [1937] A.C. 610 P:C., and by Lord Parker, CJ. in Southend-on Sea-Corporation v. Hodgeson (Wickford) Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he notice issued by the Engineer Officer dated March 10, 1980 in supersession of his earlier notice dated March 7, 1980 was issued on behalf bf the Land Development Officer not because there was any breach of the terms of the lease by the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. by the construction of a new building with an FAR of 360 together with the existing Indian Express Building, but because of nonsubmission of the sanctioned plan to the Land Development Officer and construction of the new building without the sanction of the lessor i.e. the Union of India. He clarified that the Land Development Officer is not an authority competent to question the decision of the Ministry of Works Housing to permit construction of the Indian Express Building covering an FAR of 360. The whole purpose of the. aforesaid notice of the Engineer Officer dated March 10, 1980 sent on behalf of the Land Development Officer was to realize the amount of ₹ 54,000 which had been refunded on account of the portion kept green being built up and for the purpose of checking the deviations, if any, from the sanctioned plan. Undoubtedly, the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. are liable to pay conversion charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... charges for change of user is wholly inaccurate. It overlooks the fact that the commercial charges would be only 50% of the difference between the market value on the date of conversion and-the premium already paid. That this is the correct formula is disclosed by the Government to Parliament. According to the formula, only 50% of the difference between the current market value on the date of conversion and the premium paid previously is payable as additional premium to the Government and not 100% of the said difference, as asserted. The learned counsel submits that in view of the stand taken by the Land Development Officer who evidently has misstated vital facts and tried to mislead the Court the petitioners cannot hope any kind of justice at his hands. Shri Nariman further contends that although by reason of the circular of the Government of India dated February 19, 1970 whereunder the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. were not bound to pay any premium for additional construction in respect of the lease granted (even where the actual leasedeeds are no executed), nevertheless, they are prepared to pay whatever amount that this Court may teem fit as and by way of commercial charges ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in addition to further additional ground rent. It is accordingly stated that the Court should extend no assistance to the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. from avoiding the norms and procedure for obtaining the sanction of the lessor i.e. by applying to Land Development Officer and from evading payment of charges uniformly levied. Further if the original declared real and genuine intention of using the space for its newspaper was adhered to by the Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. their monetary liability would be very small. The Land Development Officer further asserts that the petitioners apprehended. that if their real intention of commercial sub-letting were to be disclosed, they would have had to make payment and comply with the terms which they wanted to evade ant avoid. That is why instead of complying with the notice of the Engineer Officer dated March 10, 1980, the petitioners moved this Court through the present writ petitions on April 1, 1980 alleging breach of their fundamental rights under Art.19(1) (a), Art. 14 ant Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution ant obtained at-interim exparte stay on April 7, 1980. It was clear from the writ petitions that by the end of February, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position the only rental @ 16 5 per sq.ft. per month collected by the Express Newspapers Pvt.Ltd. would be Rs. One crore per year approximately. We cannot possibly in these proceedings under Art.32 under- take an adjudication of this kind but I am quite clear that respondent no.5 the Land Development Officer having already indicated his mind that the amount of conversion charges would be more than ₹ 3.30 crores, it would not subserve the interests of justice to leave the adjudication of a question of such magnitude to the arbitrary decision of the Land Development Officer who is a minor functionary of the Ministry of Works Housing. We were informed by Shri Sinha, learned counsel for respondent no.1, the Union of India that the Central Government were contemplating to undertake a legislation and to provide for a forum for adjudication of such disputes. As stated earlier, we had suggested that the dispute as to the quantum of conversion charges payable be referred to the arbitration of an impartial person like a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India, but this was not acceptable to the respondents. The Union of India may in the contemplated legislation provide fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , particularly the Union of India, Ministry of Works Housing, the Delhi Development Authority, and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, shall forbear from giving effect to the impugned notices in the manner threatened or in any other manner whatsoever. It is further directed that the Union of India, Ministry of Works Housing shall enforce its claim for recovery of conversion charges by a duly constituted suit or by making a law prescribing a forum for adjudication of its claim. It is also directed that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi shall compound the construction of the double basement of the new Express Building, the excess basement beyond the plinth limit and the underground passage on payment of the usual composition fee. The petitioners shall be entitled to recover their costs from respondents nos. 1 and 2. VENKATARAMIAH, J. I have gone through the judgment which my learned Brother Justice A.P. Sen has just now delivered. I agree that Shri Jagmohan, Lt. Governor of Delhi, the second respondent herein, has taken undue interest in getting the impugned notices issued to the Ist petitioner and his action which has come up for consideration in this case is not consist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lopment office which is under the Central Government, functioned in this case as an office under the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi and even in the conduct of this case it allowed itself to be controlled and guided by the h Lt. Governor till a very late stage when Shri Lal Narain Sinha, learned counsel for the Union of India took a definite stand and submitted that the Lt. Governor had no voice in the matter. The material available in this case is sufficient to hold that the impugned notices suffer from arbitrariness and non-application of mind. They are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence they are liable to be quashed. It is not necessary therefore to express any opinion on the contentions based on Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The rest of the questions relate truly to the civil rights of the parties flowing from the lease deed. Those questions cannot be effectively disposed of in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The questions arising out of the lease, such as, whether there has been breach of the covenants under the lease, whether the lease can be forfeited, whether relief against forfeiture can be granted etc. are for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces threatening re-entry and demolition of the construction are invalid and have no legal value and must be quashed for reasons detailed in the two judgments, which I do not propose to repeat over again, I am of the view that the other questions involved in the case are based upon contractual obligations between the parties. These questions can be satisfactorily and effectively dealt with in a property instituted proceeding or suit and not by a writ petition on the basis of affidavits which are 80 discrepant and contradictory in this case. The right to the land and to construct buildings thereon for running a business is not derived from Article 19(1)(a) or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution but springs from terms of contract between the parties regulated by other laws governing the subject, viz., the Delhi Development Act, 1957, the Master Plan, the Zonal Development Plan framed under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act and the Delhi Municipal Bye-laws, 1959 irrespective of the purpose for which the buildings are constructed. Whether there has been a breach of the contract of lease or whether there has been a breach of the other statutes regulating the construction of buildings are t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent Lt. Governor of Delhi. (b) .......... On the date on which the action was initiated in this case by the Lt. Governor against the petitioner the Lt. Governor had acted without authority or power. (c) That the Learned Counsel for the Union of India had disowned all the actions of the Lt. Governor. (d) That the Learned Counsel for Respondent NO.1 i.e. the Union of India contended that Lt. Governor, as an Administrator had no function as the Lessor or its delegatee (e) That the Lt. Governor could not usurp the powers and functions of the Union of India in relation to the property of the Union and therefore had no functions in relation to the lease in question (f) That the Central Government were contemplating to undertake a legislation and to provide for a Forum for adjudication of such disputes (Shri Sinha did inform the Court that he had advised the Central Government to undertake a legislation for empowering the Government to condone the violations of the nature involved in the present case in public interest) ....... It is incorrect as stated at pages 90-91 of the judgment that the Learned Counsel for the Union of India conceded that the Impugned No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atment either in favour or against the Indian Express. He thus categorically asserts that there was no statement on his part that the deviations were minimal or that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi would compound the deviation on payment of such composition fee as payable under the Byelaws. Further, he denies that he ever stated that composition of the deviations, according to his statement, by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi should not be treated as a precedent for others. It is unfortunate that the two senior counsel have chosen this devious and, indeed, curious method of disowning arguments advanced by them. The proper thing for them to do would have been to file affidavits and either file petitions for review or have the matters listed, with the permission of the Court, for being mentioned. Instead, the modus operandi adopted was to address letters to the Advocates-on- Record who in turn have, for reasons best known to them, passed on the letters to the petitioner Jag Mohan who was not their client at all. Advance copies of this petition laying emphasis on the aforesaid two letters of counsel appearing for other parties which, we do not doubt have the effect of scan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the usual composition fee. We have satisfied ourselves by perusing the Minutes of the Court proceedings as recorded by the Court Master on September 14 and 15, 19 3 that the statements of all the three counsel were recorded in the minutes. We have no doubt that the statements were shown to all the counsel. The typescript of the statements made by Shri M.C. Bhandare as recorded in the Minutes of the Court proceedings by the Court Master on September 15, 1983 reads as follows : Shri Bhandare appearing for the Municipal Corporation is fair enough to say that the petitioner would make an application for modification of the sanctioned plan with respect to the basement and the working h platform and the inter-connecting underground passage the same shall be considered having regard to the consideration of justice and the needs and also taking into consideration that the building has been constructed for installing a printing press and that the press cannot function without the working platform which is already constructed. The learned counsel states that this shall not be treated as precedent for others. The Municipal Corporation will compound the deviation which is minimum on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
