LexINSTITUTE OF LAW & ORS. versus NEERAJ SHARMA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2014] 11 S.C.R. 1096 INSTITUTE OF LAW & ORS. v.1 NEERAJ SHARMA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No.12143 of 2007) ' SEPTEMBER 19, 2014 [SUOHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] " ' c Constitution of India, 1950,- Arts. 14, 226- Allotment of 5. 75 acres of land in Chandigarh to the appellant-Law Institute, at Rs. 9001- per square yard only - Writ petition challenging the allotment ..., Di.vision Bench' of the .High Court, consisting of the then Chief Justice and a puisne Judge, by two separate 0 but concumng orders dispose<J of the writ petition cancelling the allotment of land, however, the puisne Judge, did not agree on certain paragraph ..:. Applic.ations thereagainst - Nominated judge held that 'though the Bench recorded different reasons, the conclusion was same - On appeal, held: Petitioner filed a bonafide writ petition and had the E necessary locus - Writ petition was maintainable in public interest as the allotment of the land made in favour of Institute was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Art. 14 - Administration of the Union Territory of Chandigarh conferred largesse on the appellant-Institute by allotting land in its favour for F inadequate· consideration without following procedure - Allottee cannot be ailowed to make· money or profiteer with the aid of the public property - Impugned order passed by the puisne Judge, which was concurred by the then Chief Justice by his separate order and the order of the third G nominated Judge holding that there is no difference of opinion in the orders of the Division Bench are legal and valid - Thus, there is no reason to if.lterfere with the impugned orders in exercise of this Court's appellate jurisdiction - Allotment of Land to Educational Institutions (Schools)Rules Etc. on H 1096 • • INSTITUTE OF LAW v. NEERAJ SHARMA 1097 Lease Hold basis in Chandigarh Scheme, 1996 - cl. 18. A Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The settlement of the land in favour of the appellant-Institute was done within a few days without following the mandatory procedure for the allotment of 8 land. The intention of the appellants to set up the law institute, however, their private interest is pitted against the public interest The loss to the public exchequer could have been easily .;ivoided had the land been settled by way of public auction inviting applications from eligible C persons. [Para 23] [1106-B, C] 1.2. The respondent No.1-writ petitioner has filed a bonafide writ petition and he has the necessary locus. There is an apparent favour shown by the Union Territory o of Chandigarh in favour of the appellant-Institute which is a profit making company. Hence, there is a strong reason to hold that the writ petition is maintainable in public interest. The High Court rightly held that the writ petition is a Public Interest Litigation and not a Private E Interest Litigation. [Para 25] [1110-C-E] 1.3. The appellants have miserably failed to show the malafide intention on the part of the respondent No. 1 in filing writ petition and he is a public spirited person. The record of the AAO (Audit) submitted to the Chandigarh F Administration proves the allegations made by him. The Administration of the Union Territory of Chandigarh has conferred largesse on the appellant-Institute by allotting land in its favour for inadequate consideration without following procedure. Therefore, the writ petition filed by G the fir5t respondent is maintainable as the allotment of the land in question made in favour of the first appellant- Institute was arbitrary, illegal and the same was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. [Para 26] [1110- F-H; 1111-A, B] H 1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 11 S.C.R. A Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sindri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors .. 1981 (2 ) SCR 52 : AIR 1981 SC 344, (1981) 1 SCC 568; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Anr. 1982 SCR 365: (1981) Supp SCC 87; Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2004 (6) Suppl. SCR B 900: (2005) t sec 590 "'." referred to. 2.1. The discretionary power conferred upon the public authorities to carry out the necessary Regulations for allotting land for the purpose of constructing a public educational institution should not be 'misused. The plea · C of charitable intentiOn or philanthropic goal behind the establishment of the appellant educational institution is discarded as the establishmen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.