ANANT RAJ LTD. (FORMERLY M/S. ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES LTD.) versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1021 · Decided: 27-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1021
ANANT RAJ LTD.
(FORMERLY M/S. ANANT RAJ INDUSTRIES LTD.)
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6471 of 2021)
OCTOBER 27, 2021
[AJAY RASTOGI AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
Town Planning: Licence for development of group housing
colony – Policy of State to grant licence on ‘First Come First Serve’
basis – Held: The principle of ‘First Come First Serve’ basis adopted
by the State Respondents is neither rational nor in public interest
and is in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution – Haryana
Development and Regulation Urban Areas Act, 1975 – Haryana
Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 –
Constitution of India – Art. 14.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The undisputed facts which have emerged from
the record are that neither in the public notice dated 1st October,
2010 which came to be published on 4th October, 2010, nor in the
Final Development Plan dated 24th May, 2011, nor in policy
instructions which came to be circulated by the Respondents at a
later stage on 5th July, 2012, regarding receipt and validity of the
applications for grant of licence, of which a detailed reference
has been made, nowhere prescribes that the method of allotment
of licence shall be made on First Come First Serve basis and
from where this practice had been borrowed/adopted by the
Respondent/State authorities is alien to the Scheme of the 1975
Act or the 1976 Rules framed thereunder, nor any material in
support thereof has been placed on record. [Para 30][1033-G-H;
1034-A-B]
2. The term “established practice” refers to a regular,
consistent, predictable and certain conduct, process or activity
of the decision-making authority and being the State functionary,
its character is supposed to be based on the requirement of higher
degree of fairness in administrative action to be tested on the
anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution. [Para 33][1034-G-H]
[2021] 6 S.C.R. 1021
1021
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1022
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
3. The very foundation on which the process was initiated,
inviting applications pursuant to the public notice dated 4th
October, 2010, on the principle of First Come First Serve basis
is completely silent/missing from records and how that becomes
an established practice in entertaining applications for grant of
allotment of licence under the policy of the State Government
dated 19th December, 2006, pursuant to which the public notice
came to be published on 4th October, 2010 with a clarification
being made of the policy of the Government dated 5th July, 2012
is alien to the records and it was never made known to the public
as to the mechanism the Government intended to adopt for grant
of licence to the prospective applicants. [Para 34][1035-A-B]
4. Although this factor cannot be ruled out that those who
are interested parties, they were aware of this so-called alleged
practice of First Come First Serve adopted in the office of the
State Respondent and that was the reason for which even before
the public notice dated 1st October, 2010 came to be published
on 4th October, 2010, people start running for submitting their
applications as if they are participating in the mad race, without
being known to the people at large about the policy according to
which the applications are invited for grant of licence to the
prospective applicants which is a sine qua non for good
governance. [Para 35][1035-C-D]
5. That apart, there is a fundamental flaw in the policy of
the State of First Come First Serve basis as it involves an element
of pure chance or accident and it indeed has inherent in-built
implications and this factor cannot be ruled out as any person
who has an access to the power corridors will be made available
with an information from the Government records and before
there could be a public notice accessible to the people at large,
the interested person may submit his application, as happened in
the instant case, and become entitled to stand first included in
queue to have a better claim, at the same time it is the solemn
duty of the State to ensure that a non-discriminatory method is
adopted, whether it is for distribution or allotment of licence on
his own land, or alienation of property and it is imperative and of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1023
paramount consideration that every action of the State should
always be in public interest. [Para 36][1035-E-G]
6. In the matter of grant of licence even on its own land to
set up a group housing society, the policy of allotment must be
f

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