M/S VISHAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 910 · Decided: 09-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS VISHAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. 
1- -
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 9, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
UP. Industrial Development Act, 1976-S. 10(1)-Notice by 
''f' 
Development Authority-Alleging violation of bye-laws, directions, 
' 
c terms and conditions, and user of building in violation of rules-Change 
of user sought-Denied by Authority-Writ Petition-Denying 
allegations and claimingpermissiorz to change of user as was done in 
case of lessees of other plots-Dismissed-In appeal, held: Act of 
Authority cannot be said to be discriminatory-Irregularity by the 
D Authority in case of others, does not confer legal right to the claimant 
~( 
for similar benefit-Actions of the Authority are not without sanction 
J;,. 
of Law-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14-Right to equality-Held: 
E · The provision provides for positive equality and not negative equality. 
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) issued 
notice to the appellant u/s 10(1) ofU.P. Industrial Development Act, 
1976, alleging violation of bye-Laws, directions, terms and 
·~ 
conditions. It also pointed out the user of a floor in violation of rules. 
/. 
F Appellant in his reply to the notice stated that the allegations were · 
incorrect. By another letter, appellant requested for change of user 
of two floors. The request was rejected. Appellant filed Writ Petition 
taking the stand that there was no contravention and that he should 
be permitted to use these floors as was done in the case of lessees 
G of certain other plots. Writ Petition was dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that act ofNOIDA 
was discriminatory inasmuch the benefit of change in policy regarding 
regularization was not given to him as extended to others. 
H 
910 
y' 
\ 
' 
M/SVISHALPROPERTIESPVT.LTD. v. STATE 
911 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In view of the factual position, the actions of the 
respondents are not without sanction of law. When the 
representation was made by the appellant in 1993 there was no policy 
A 
in question. In fact, the change of policy came subsequently. The B 
authorities may have acted in an irregular manner in case of some 
others. That does not confer any legal right on the appellant to claim 
a similar benefit. So far as the allotments of other plots are 
concerned, they stand on different footing. The conditions in the 
brochure issued in that regard were different. 
C 
[Paras 9and18) [919-F; 914-F-G] 
2. Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate an 
illegality. It provides for positive equality and not negative equality. 
Therefore; the Court is not bound to direct any Authority to repeat 
the wrong action done by it earlier. [Para 12) [917-H; 918-A] 
D 
Sushanta Tagore and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [2005] 3 
SCC 16; Snehprabha v. State of UP. and Ors.; AIR (1996) SC 540; 
Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Dau/at Mal Jam 
and Ors., [1997] 1SCC35; State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ram Kumar 
Mann, [1997] 3 SCC 321; Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health E 
Services and Ors., [1997] 7 SCC 752; Finance Commissioner 
(Revenue) v. Guiab Chandra and Anr., (2001) AIR SCW 4774; 
Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh AIR (1999) SC 
1347; Union o,flndia and Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar, AIR (2001) SC 1877; 
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal, [1999] 9 SCC 240; 
F 
Yogesh Kumar and Ors. v. Government ofNCT Delhi and Ors., (2003] 
3 SCC 548; Union o.f India and Anr. v. International Trading Company 
andAnr., [2003) 5 SCC 437; Mis Anand Button Ltd v. State of Haryana 
and Ors., (2005) AIR SCW 67 and State of Kera/av. K. Prasad and 
Anr., JT (2007) 9SC140, relied on. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4732 
of2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19.5.2005 of the High 
H 
912 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. 
A Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 40812 of2005. 
WITH 
T.P.(C) No. 846of2005. 
Sanjay Jain, Om Prakash Mishra and Ghan Shyam Vasisht for the 
B Appellant. 
R.G. Padia, Harish N. Salve, Pradeep Misra, Sandeep Singh, T. 
__ , 
Mahipal, Reena Singh and Ravindra Kumar for the Respondents. 
'y· 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Be11ch 
of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the 
appellant questioning corr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.