CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR versus JAGJIT SINGH AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 10-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR: 
v. 
JAGJIT SINGH AND ANR. ETC. 
::>.:._ 
JANUARY 10, 1995 
I 
~ 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
'-.I-
Contitution of India-Art. 226-Wrti Petition-Lease--Cancella-
tion-Allottees, persistent def aulters-Retum of amount depositecJ-:-Writ Peti-
;.\-
tion for restoration of plot-Allowed on ground that in another case, 
c Administrator had restored plot to her-Plea of discrimination-Each case to 
l!e decided on its merits factual and legal-Writ not to be issued on the basis 
of order passed in some other cases. 
~ 
Rule of Lav.'-issuing writ on plea of discrimination on basis of order 
,. 
passed in case of another p,erson similarly situated-Validity of order passed 
l 
D in favour of other person to be investigated first before it can be directed to 
'Ill
be followed-lllegal or unwarranted orders passed in another case cannot be 
·-... 
made basis of issuing writ agains~ authority. 
An auction was held by the Chandigarh Administration in Septem· 
her 1975 wherein the respondents were the highest bidders in respect of a 
' 
E 
plot. The right sold in auction was the lease-hold right. The respondents · 
deposited 25% of the money immediately. The balance consideration was 
.. 
payable in three equal instalments. The respondents defaulted in paying 
r 
the same. A notice calling upon the Respondents to show cause why the ·. 
0 
lease in their favour be not cancelled was issued. After giving due oppor· 
F 
tunity of hearing to the respondents, the lease was cancelled, while forfeit·. 
~· 
ing 10% of the premium amount. An appeal w:as file4 before the Chief 
>----
Administrator which was dismissed. However, the Administrator reduced 
the arµ,ount of forleiture. Revision flied against the order was dismissed. 
The Respondents applied to the Estate Officer for refun·d of the amount 
. 
G paid by them. The amount was refunded in full. Havi·ng taken back the 
amount, they filed successive review petitions before the Chief Commis· 
sioner seeking restoration of the plot. Second review petition was 'allowe!l 
permitting respondents to pay the entire amount Within sixty days. The 
. .,.. 
respondents failed to avail of the said concession in the year 1985. 
H 
In 1990, the respondents filed a writ petition offering to pay the 
126 
').._ 
CHANDIGARH ADMN. v. J. SINGH 
127 
amount with 12% interest. The petition was dismissed holding that since A 
;;I 
the respondents were persistent defaulters and also because of rise in 
prices, they are not entitled to any relief. Another writ petition was filed 
for a direction to the Administrator to implement the alleged policy of the 
government to restore the plot by charging a forfeiture amount of 5%. The 
petition was allowed on the ground that in another case pertaining to Smt. B 
Prakash Rani, the administrator had restored the plot to her even after 
her writ petition was dismissed, the same treatement be extended to the 
~ 
Respondent. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
c 
HELD 1.1. In the instant case, the basis or the principle on which 
the writ petition has been allowed by the High Court was unsustainable in 
law and indefensible in principle. The mere fact that the respondent 
authority had passed a particular order in the case of another person 
.... 
similarly situated could never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour D 
of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the 
other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That bad to be 
investigated first before it could be directed to be followed in the case of 
the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person was found to be 
contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of bis case, 
E 
such illegal or unwarranted order could not be made the basis of issuing 
a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to 
pass another unwarranted order. The extra-ordinary and discretionary 
power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely 
~ 
because the respondent-authority had passed one illegal/unwarranted 
order, it did not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat F 
that illegality over and over again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be 
corrected, if it can be done according to law; when ever it is possible, the 
court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders 
in accordance with law • but even if

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