LexCITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR versus PLATINUM ENTERTAINMENT AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 10 S.C.R. 704 CITY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR v. PLATINUM ENTERTAINMENT AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 9264 of 2014) SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 [M.Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Town Planning - Government action - Allotment of C government land by the State or its agencies - Requirement of fairness and equity - Three plots of Government land allotted by appellant-CIDCO (City and Industrial Development Corporation) - Cancellation of the allotment - Validity - Held: Authorities of CIDCO showed undue favour and managed to D allot the Government land in favour of one person knowing fully well that the proprietor of the Company, in different capacity and in dummy names, sought allotments of plots - Arbitrariness had a role to play in the matter -Action on the part of CIDCO was nothing but favouritism based on nepotism E and was irrational and unreasonable and functioning in a discriminatory manner - Order passed by the CIDCO cancelling the allotments made in favour of the respondents accordingly upheld - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - New Bombay Disposal of lands F Regulations, 1975 - New Bombay Road Disp·osal Rules, 1975 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 14. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD:1. State and its agencies and instrumentalities G cannot give largesse to any person at sweet will and whims of the political entities or officers of the State. However, decisions and action of the State must be founded on a sound, transparent and well defined policy which shall be made known to the public. The disposal H 704 CllY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT THR. ITS MANAGING 705 DIRECTOR v. PLATINUM ENTERTAINMENT of Government land by adopting a discriminatory and A arbitrary method shall always be avoided and it should be done in a fair and equitable manner as the allotment on favoritism or nepotism influences the exercises of discretion. Even assuming that if the Rule or Regulation prescribes the mode of allotment by entertaining B individual application or by tenders or competitive bidding, the Rule of Law requires publicity to be given before such allotment is made. CIDCO authorities should not adopt pick and choose method while allotting the Government land. [Para 49] [738-E-G] c 2. It is more evident and clear that arbitrariness had a role to play in the matter while allotting the three plots in favour of one group of persons which certainly would come within the meaning of arbitrariness on the part of CIDCO and against the public policy. Such an action on D the part of CIDCO is nothing but a favouritism based on nepotism and was irrational and unreasonable and functioning in a discriminatory manner. [Para 51] [739-D- E] E 3. The authorities of CIDCO showed undue favour to the respondents and managed to allot the Government land in favour of one person knowing fully well that the aforesaid proprietor of the Company, in different capacity and in dummy names, sought allotments of plots. CIDCO F was thus justified in cancelling all the allotments made in favour of the respondents. [Paras 54, 55] [740-F-G; 741-8] Raman Dayaram Shelly vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors. (1979) 3 SCC 489: 1979 (3) SCR 1014; Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress vs. State of Madhya Pradesh G & ors. (2011) 5 SCC 29: 2011 (5) SCR 77; Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy & Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr. (1980) 4 SCC 1: 1980 (3) SCR 1338; State of Haryana vs. Jage Ram (1983) 4 SCC 556: 1983 (3) SCR 917; Sachidanand Pandey & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. H 706 SUPREME COURT REPORtS [2014) 10 S.C.R. A (1987) 2 SCC 295: 1987 (2) SCR 223; Padma vs. Hiralal Motilal Desarda (2002) 7 SCC 564 and Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1: 2012 (3) SCR 147 and Humanity and Anr. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 125: 2011 (8) SCR 653 - B relied on. Popcorn Entertainment & Anr. vs. City Industrial Development Corpn. & Anr. (2007) 9 SCC 593: 2007 (3) SCR 17; Kasturi Lal Laxmi Reddy vs. State of Jammu & C Kashmir 1980 (4) SCC 1: 1980 (3) SCR 1338; Chairman . and MD, BPL Ltd. vs. S.P. Gururaja and others 2003 (8) SCC 567: 2003 (4) Suppl. SCR 587 and Sunil Pannalal Banthia vs. City & Industrial Development Corpn. of Maharashtra Ltd. (2007) 10 SCC 674: 2007 (3) SCR 798 - referred to. D Case Law Reference: 2007 (3) SCR 17 1980 (3) SCR 1338 referred to refer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.