TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 1307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bids, prior approval of the State Government as is required under Section 109 of the said Act was not taken. It appears, that only after the tender process was finalized and the Municipal Council had taken a decision to accept the bid of Respondent No.1, two municipal counsellors raised objection under the provisions of Section 323 of the said Act, before the Collector, Neemuch - In the present case, we find that the Commissioner had acted rightly as a custodian of the public property by pointing out the anomalies in the proposal of the Municipal Council to the State Government and the State Government has also responded in the right perspective by authorising the Commissioner to take an appropriate decision. By no stretch of imagination, the decision of the State Government or the Commissioner could be termed as illegal, improper, unreasonable or irrational, which parameters only could have permitted the High Court to interfere. Interference by the High Court when none of such parameters exist, in our view, was totally improper. On the contrary, we find that it is the High Court, which has failed to take into consideration relevant material. Appeal allowed - decided in favor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther appears, that the Collector vide Order dated 18.07.2008 had stayed further proceedings of the tender process. Vide Order dated 23.12.2008, the Collector disposed of the proceeding observing therein, that the proposal be sent for approval of the State Government in the Urban Administrative and Development Department, respondent No. 2 herein, under the provisions of Section 109 of the said Act. 6. Thereafter, it appears that, there was certain correspondence between the Urban Administrative and Development Department, on one hand, and the Divisional Revenue Commissioner of Ujjain, respondent No.3 herein, on the other hand. Finally, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 03.07.2010 observing therein that, the tenders invited in connection with transfer of the said land were not competitive. He further observed in the said Order, that the NIT was published only in Indore edition of two Hindi Newspapers at Indore and as such there was no wide circulation. As such, he rejected the proposal of the Municipal Council and returned the same with the direction to invite the tenders again by publishing the NIT in at least one National level English newspaper and one State level ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any one year does not exceed one thousand five hundred rupees; (c) with the sanction of the Council, the Chief Municipal Officer may lease, sell or otherwise convey any immovable property belonging to the Council. (3) The sanction of the PresidentinCouncil or of the Council under subsection (2) may be given either generally for any class of cases or specially in any particular case: Provided that (i) no property vesting in the Council in trust shall be leased, sold or otherwise conveyed in a manner that is likely to prejudicially effect the purpose of the trust subject to which such property is held; (ii) no land exceeding fifty thousand rupees in value shall be sold or otherwise conveyed without the previous sanction of the State Government and every sale or other conveyance of property vesting in the Council shall be deemed to be subject to the conditions and limitations imposed by this Act or by any other enactment for the time being in force. 9. It could thus be seen that, the aforesaid provision governs the disposal of municipal property vesting in or under the management of the Municipal Council. Clause (ii) of sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be recorded in writing, transfer any immovable property to a bidder other than the highest bidder. 12. It is thus amply clear that, no land, exceeding fifty thousand rupees in the value shall be sold or otherwise conveyed without the previous sanction of the State Government. The perusal of the aforesaid Rule further makes it clear that the immovable property which yields or is capable of yielding an income shall not be transferred by sale or otherwise conveyed, except to the highest bidder at the public auction or by inviting offers in a sealed cover. No doubt, with the previous sanction of the State Government such a transfer could be effected without public auction or inviting offers in a sealed cover. The second proviso further provides that, the Corporation may, with the previous sanction of the State Government and for the reasons to be recorded in writing, transfer any immovable property to a bidder other than the highest bidder. 13. It is thus amply clear that, whenever any land which is having a value exceeding fifty thousand rupees is to be sold the same cannot be done without the previous sanction of the State Government. 14. In th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t comes to a conclusion, that the decision maker has not understood the law correctly that regulates his decisionmaking power or when it is found that the decision of the decision maker is vitiated by irrationality and that too on the principle of Wednesbury Unreasonableness or unless it is found that there has been a procedural impropriety in the decisionmaking process, it would not be permissible for the High Court to interfere in the decision making process. It is also equally well settled, that it is not permissible for the Court to examine the validity of the decision but this Court can examine only the correctness of the decisionmaking process. 16. This Court recently in the case of West Bengal Central School Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 902 had again an occasion to consider the scope of interference under Article 226 in an administrative action. 31. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is selfeviden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18. In the light of the aforesaid principles, let us examine the facts of the present case. Undisputedly, in the present case, before inviting the bids, prior approval of the State Government as is required under Section 109 of the said Act was not taken. It appears, that only after the tender process was finalized and the Municipal Council had taken a decision to accept the bid of Respondent No.1, two municipal counsellors raised objection under the provisions of Section 323 of the said Act, before the Collector, Neemuch. The Collector, Neemuch on 18.07.2008 had granted stay to the proceedings. Finally, the Collector, vide Order dated 23.12.2008 held that for granting the said land on lease for a period of 30 years, the approval of the State Government is necessary. Pursuant to the said order by the Collector, the matter was sent to respondent No. 2State Government. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh addressed a communication to the Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner ) thereby authorising him to transfer the land in question. While doing so, the State Government also directed the Commissioner to insp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to invite the tenders again and get the NIT published in at least one National level English newspaper and one State level Hindi newspaper. 22. The situation that emerges is thus. Initially the Municipal Council, Neemuch, invited tenders for allotment of the said land on lease for 30 years. This was done without taking prior approval of the State Government as in required under Section 109 of the said Act. Two municipal counsellors raised objections before the Collector under the provisions of Section 323 of the said Act. The Collector, who initially granted stay on 18.07.2008, vide order dated 23.12.2008 directed the Municipal Council to seek approval of the State Government to the said proposal. Vide communication dated 21.12.2009, the State Government directed respondent No. 3Revenue Commissioner to hand over the possession of the land to respondent No. 1. While doing so, the State Government directed the Commissioner to inspect as to whether the land was being put for use as per the development plan. On receipt of the communication, the Divisional Commissioner addressed a communication to the State Government on 03.03.2010 thereby, specifically pointing out tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue. Not only this, but the State Government, after the Commissioner pointing out anomalies to its notice, has reexamined and reconsidered the issue and authorised the Commissioner to pass appropriate orders including invalidating the tender process and directing initiation of fresh tender process. In the background of this factual situation, the finding of the Division Bench of the High Court that the action of the Commissioner is arbitrary and illegal, in our view, is neither legally or factually correct. As discussed hereinabove, the High Court, while exercising its powers of judicial review of administrative action, could not have interfered with the decision unless the decision suffers from the vice of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. 25. In the present case, we find that the Commissioner had acted rightly as a custodian of the public property by pointing out the anomalies in the proposal of the Municipal Council to the State Government and the State Government has also responded in the right perspective by authorising the Commissioner to take an appropriate decision. We are of the considered view that, both, the Commissioner as well as the St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
