LexBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MARTYRS MEMORIAL TRUST AND ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 215 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MARTYRS MEMORIAL TRUST AND ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 4444 of 2010) OCTOBER 4, 2012 [R.M. LODHA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Art. 226 - Writ petition - Disposal of, without adjudication A B c on the issues involved - Held: A slipshod consideration or cryptic order or decision without due reflection on the issues raised in a matter may render such decision unsustainable - Each and every matter that comes to court must be examined 0 with the seriousness it deserves - In the instant case, the writ petition was disposed of by High Court without calling for any counter-affidavit from respondents - Appellants have raised some serious issues concerning the action of the District Collector, who wrote the letter in his capacity as Secretary of E • the Trust to himself and then passed an order of cancellation of allotment of Government accommodation of the Trust in his capacity as District Magistrate under pressure of the political party then ruling the State - These serious allegations did require response from the District Magistrate - Impugned order is set aside - Writ petition is restored to the file of High F Court for consideration and disposal afresh - Judgments/ Orders - Administration of justice. Appellant No. 1, a public charitable trust, was created with the object to perpetuate the memory of the martyrs G of National Freedom Movement, and on 27.3.2002 was allotted Government Accommodation nos. 1 and 2 of Revenue Department, Ballia (U.P.). An l.T.Training 215 H 216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 9 S.C.R. A Institute for the poor and underprivileged students was established under aegis of the Trust in the subject premises and the building constructed on the adjoining land. The Institute was recognized by the Government of India under the Employment Generation Training Scheme B (EGTS). It was the case of the appellcmt-Trust that on 15.05.2009, the District Collector, who was also the Secretary of the Trust, issued an order canceling the allotment of the Government Accommodation made in favour of the Trust on the ground that a request had been c received from the Secretary of the Trust by letter dated 28.02.2009 to cancel the allotment. Subsequently, the subject premises were sealed by the official of the State Government. In the writ petition filed by the Principal of the Institute, the High Court passed an interim order dated 0 28.08.2009 directing the authorities to remove the seal, and permitted examinations to be held. Subsequently, the appellant Trust also filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49841 of 2009 challenging the order dated 15.05.2009. The High Court declined to interfere and disposed of the writ petition observing that the writ petitioners had no vested E right in the subject premises. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 A slipshod consideration or cryptic order F or decision without due reflection on the issues raised in a matter may render such decision unsustainable. Hasty adjudication must be avoided. Each and every matter that comes to the court must be examined with the seriousness it deserves. What is required of any judicial G decision is due application of mind, clarity of reasoning and focused consideration. [Para 21] [224-E-F] 1.2 In the instant case, admittedly, the writ petition was disposed of by the High Court without calling for any H counter-affidavit from the respondents. The appellants BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MARTYRS MEMORIAL 217 TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA have raised some serious issues concerning the action A of the District Collector. The Secretary of the Trust also happened to be the District Collector. He is alleged to have not convened any meeting of the Trust and on his own, took a decision to surrender the Government accommodation allotted to the Trust on make believe and B self-created grounds that the allotted Government accommodation was not being used by the Trust for the purpose for which it was allotted to the said Trust. The appellants have alleged that the action of the District Magistrate by sending the communication dated C 28.02.2009, as the Secretary of the Trust for surrendering the Government accommodation and then passing the order himself on 15.05.2009 cancelling the allotment was at the behest of the political party ruling the State at that time. It has also been alleged that thi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.