LexAGGARWAL AND MODI ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD. AND ANR versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
t J. AGGARWAL AND MODI ENTERPRISES PVT.LTD. AND ANR A v. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AUGUST 31, 2007 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA,JJ.] NDMC Act, 1994: s.141(2)-Premises given on lease to run a uniplex- Non-renewal of lease after its expiry-ND MC-lessor seeking vacant possession B of premises and its public auction to pursue with its resolution to run retail C mall cum multiplex~High Court dismissing writ petition filed by lessee- lnterference with-Held: Interference not called/or as NDMC is obligated to adopt procedure by which it can get maximum possible return for such immovable property-Methodology for receiving maximum consideration in normal and fair competition would be public auction which is transparent mode of disposal of public property-Public property-Mode of disposal.. D Words and phrases: Expression 'normal and fair competition'- Connotation of in the context of s.141(2) of NDMC Act, 1994. The suit premises was given on lease for particular period to appellant E No.l by the respondent-NDMC. The offer of further renewal beyond 1.10.1990 (third block) was initiated by NDMC but the same was not accepted. The offer was challenged by filing writ petition. Appellants continued in possession because of stay orders granted in writ petition and without a contract. Even the third block contained in the offer dated 2.12.1991 expired on 30.9.2000. Thus there was no subsisting lease or agreement written or oral which gave F any right to the appellants to seek further renewal under the lease. On 13.11.2001, respondent passed order that the appellants were in unauthorized occupants of the premises. Against this, appellants filed writ petition. High Court dismissed the writ petition. NDMC passed a resolution dated 30.8.2000 that land on which suit premises was standing was transferred by Ministry G of Urban Development to NDMC for developing multiplex buildings. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that they have been ousted, discriminated and subjected to hostile treatment as in no other case purported 675 H 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS c2007j 9 s.c.R. A intention of public auction has been resorted to. The respondent contended that after 2000 there was no agreemeiit ·ror lease; that one of the objectives ofNDMC was to have retail mall cuin·miilti! plex; that the financial capacity of the appellants is not sufficient, tliey'bave B no expertise in the intended activities and in that sense, the auction would be the first time exercise. ' Dismissing the appeal, the Court , !. HELD: 1. The mandate of Section 141(2) of NDMC Act, 1994 is.that C any immovable property belonging to NDMC is to be sold, leased, licensed or transferred on consideration which is not to be less than the value atwhich such immovable property could be sold, leased, or transferred in fair competition. The crucial expression is "normal and fair competition". In other words, NDMC is obligated to adopt the procedure by which it can get maxhiitim D possible return/consideration for such immovable property. The methodology which can be adopted for receiving maximum consideration in a normal a~d -fair competition would be the public auction which is expected to be fair and transparent. Public auction not only ensures fair price and maximum return it also militates against any allegation of favouritism on the part of t~e Government authorities while giving grant for disposing of public property. E The courts have accepted public auction as a transparent mean ofdisposal of public property. (Para 22) (684-C-E) State of UP v. Shiv Charan Sharma, AtR (1981) SC 1722; Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 267; Sterling Computers Ltd v. M & N Publications Ltd, [ 1993) 1 SCC 445; Mahesh Chandra v. Regional F Manager, UP Financial Corporation, (1993) 2 SCC 279; Pachaivappa's Trust v. Official Trustee of Madras, 11994) l SCC 475; Chairman and MD. SIPCO, Madras v. Contromix Pvt. Ltd, (1995) 4 SCC 595; New India Public School v. HUDA, AIR (1996) SC 3458; State of Kera/av. M Bhaskaran Pillai, 119971 S SCC 432 and Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills, (2002l G 3 sec 4'>6, relied on. --1 .. r it Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai and Anr., (200413 sec 214, referred to. . • ~Ji -~ - •• 2. Disposal of public property partakes the character of trust and there H }- I t AGGARWAL AND MODI ENTERP. PVT. LID. v. N.D.M.C. [PASAYAT, J.]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.