M.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD. versus RADHEY SHAYAM SAHU AND OTHERS

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 1066 · Decided: 26-07-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
M.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD. 
v. 
RADHEY SHAY AM SAHU AND OTHERS 
JULY 26, 1999 
B 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India : 
Articles 14,21,49,5/-A, 298, 299, 226 and 136-Park of historical 
C importance-Maintained by Corporation-Corporation entering into an . 
agreement with a builder for the construction of underground shopping 
complex in the guise of decongesting the area without inviting tenders-
Terms of agreement totally one side in favour of builder and also contrary 
to statutory provisions passed by State Legislature-Allegations of personal 
gain against the authorities of Corporation-Corporation divested of its 
D control over the park after the agreement-Held, such action of Corporation 
is unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair and opposed to public policy, public interest 
and public trust doctrine and is an example of bad governance-Therefore, 
judicial revielf called for-Any illegal or unauthorised construction done by 
the builder must be demolished irrespective of amount of expenditure incurred 
~ 
E by it-Municipalities-UP. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959-U.P. 
Reglflation of Buildings Operations Act, 1958-U.P. Urban Planning and 
Development Act, 1973-U.P. Parks, Playgrounds and Open Spaces 
(Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1975. 
Article 136-Relief-illegal and unauthorised construction-Court 
F should order demolition of such construction irrespective of any amount 
invested by the builder-Exercise of judicial discretion in moulding the relief 
not called for in such cases of illegal and unauthorised construction as the 
same would encourage and perpetuate the illegality-Direction issued to 
hold an enquiry as to how unauthorised construction came about and to 
G book the offenders-Public Accountability-Town Planning-Municipalities. 
Articles-226, 32, I 36-Judicial review-Action of State or its 
instrumentality-Illegal and in contravention of prescribed procedure apart 
from being unreasonable, irrational or mala fides-He/d, such action is open 
to judicial review-Further held, that bad governance sets bad example-
H Administrative Law. 
1066 
' 
' 
M.I. BUILDERS PVT. LTD. v. R.S. SAHU 
1067 
U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959: 
A 
Section 114-0bligatory duty of the Corporation to maintain Parks-
Corporation allowing a builder to construct an underground shopping 
.. · complex over an existing park of historical importance-Held, section 114 
violated-However, underground construction can be converted into a 
parking place as it was also an obligatory duty of the Corporation-But, B 
such parking place be constructed after taking into consideration all relevant 
factors such as locality and its population etc.-Town Planning-UP. Parks, 
Playground and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation)· Act, 197 5. 
Sections 91, 105 and 119-Meetings of so called High Power Committee 
of the Corporation-No authority to the Corporation to constitute such a C 
Committee and to delegate its function to the Committee-Notice issued for 
meeting of such Committee-Agenda included "other subjects, subject to the 
permission of the Presiding Officer"- Under this topic of the agenda, 
Corporation allowed a builder to construct an underground shopping complex 
on an existing park of historical importance-Decision of this Committee D 
was approved by Executive Committee and general body-Held, constitution 
of High Power Committee and delegation of function was wholly illegal and 
. 
) 
violative of mandatory provisions of Section 91 and 119 and was not mere 
irregularity so as to be protected under Section 105-Further, such an 
important project could not have been discussed under the topic "other 
subjects" of the agenda-Municipalities-Town Planning. 
E 
Section 136(2)-Requirement to obtain sanction of State Government 
where any project approved by the Corporation exceeded Rs. ten lakhs-
Held, Section 136 (2) attracted not only where the cost of the project was 
to be incurred by the Corporation but otherwise also. 
Sections 131,132,133 and 136-Land of prime value was handed over 
to a builder in violation of public trust doctrine and master plan of the city 
F 
for the construction of an underground shopping complex iover an existing 
park by way of an agreement-Terms of agreement were such that a man of 1 
ordinary prudence would not have such one sided terms in favour of the G 
builder-Terms also contrary to various statutory provisions-Held, agreement 
was illegal, unreasonable, atrocious, irrationa

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