AKHIL BHARTIYA UPBHOKTA CONGRESS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2011] 5 S.C.R. 77 · Decided: 06-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 5 S.C.R. 77 
AKHIL BHARTIYA UPBHOKTA CONGRESS 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2965 of 2011) 
APRIL 6, 2011 
B 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 14 - Principle of equality - Exercise of power by C 
political entities and officers/officials - Scope of - Held: For 
achieving the goals of Justice and Equality set out in the 
Preamble, the State and its agencies/instrumentalities have 
to function through political entities and officers/officials at 
different levels - The exercise of power by political entities and D 
officers/officials for providing different kinds of services and 
benefits to the people always has an element of discretion, 
which is required to be used in larger public interest and for 
public good and in a rational and judicious manner without 
any discrimination against anyone - In Indian constitutional E 
structure, no functionary of the State or public authority has 
an absolute or unfettered discretion -
The very idea of 
unfettered discretion is totally incompatible with the doctrine 
of equality enshrined in the Constitution and is an antithesis 
to the concept of rule of law - Administrative law. 
Part Ill; IV; Article 39(b) - Role of the State - Discussed. 
F 
Administrative law: State and/or its agencies! 
instrumentalities - Action/decision of, to give largesse or 
confer benefit on any person - Held: Must be founded on a G 
sound, transparent, discernible and well defined policy, which 
shall be made known to the public by publication in the Official 
Gazette and other recognized modes of publicity and such 
policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a non-
77 
H 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
discriminatory or non-arbitrary method irrespective of the class 
or category of persons proposed to be benefitted by the policy 
- Distribution of largesse such as allotment of land by the 
State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be 
done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of 
s favoritism or nepotism should not influence the exercise of 
discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or 
officer of the State - By entertaining applications made by 
individuals, organisations or institutions for allotment of land 
or for grant of any other type of largesse, the State cannot 
c exclude other eligible persons from lodging competing claim 
- The competent authority should, as a matter of course, issue 
an advertisement incorporating therein the conditions of 
eligibility so as to enable all similarly situated eligible 
persons, institutions/organisations to participate in the process 
0 
of allotment, whether by way of auction or otherwise - The 
allotment of land which carry the tag of caste, community or 
religion is not only contrary to the idea of Secular Democratic 
Republic but is also fraught with grave danger of dividing the 
society on caste or communal lines - The allotment of land 
E 
to such bodies/organisations/institutions on political 
considerations or by way of favoritism or nepotism is 
constitutionally impermissible -
In the instant case, 
reservation and allotment of land to respondent no.5 was not 
preceded by any advertisement in the newspaper or by any 
other recognized mode of publicity inviting applications from 
F 
organizations/institutions for allotment of land and everything 
was done by the political and non-political functionaries of the 
State as if they were under a legal obligation to allot land to 
respondent No.5 - The advertisements issued by the State 
functionaries were only for inviting objections against the 
G proposed reservation and/or allotment of land in favour of 
respondent no.5 and not for participation in the process of 
allotment - Therefore, allotment of land to respondent No.5 
was not done by following a procedure consistent with Arlicle 
14 of the Constitution. 
H 
AKHIL BHARTIYA UPBHOKTA CONGRESS v. STATE 
79 
OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. 
Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 
A 
1973: 
Object of its enactment - Discussed. 
s.23-A - Development Plan - Modification of - Whether 
notifications by which the Bhopal Development Plan was 8 
modified and land use was .changed were ultra vires the 
provisions of s. 23-A - Held: The power of modification of 
development plan can be exercised only for specified 
purposes- In terms of s.23-A(1)(a), the development plan can 
be modified by the State Gover

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.