NEW INDIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS. ETC. versus HUDA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 15-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY

Judgment (excerpt)

NEW INDIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ORS. ETC. 
A 
v. 
HUDA AND ORS. ETC. 
JULY 15, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Haryana Urban Developme11t Autholity Act, 1977: Sectio11 15. 
Ha1ya11a Urba11 Development (Disposal of La11d and Buildings) 
Regulatio11s 1978 : Regulations 3, 4, 5 a11d Proviso. 
C 
Harya11a Urban Developme11t Autholity-Power to dispose /a11d-Ap-
p/ications for allotmelll. of sites to establish schoo/s-Allotf!te/lt to some 
persons and de11ial to others-Challenge to validity of allotment procedure by 
11011-allottees-Si11gle Judge fou11d fault with allotment but dismissed the wlit D 
petition taki11g i11to accoullt the fact that some allottees had already con-
st1ucted buildings Oil sites allotted a11d schools were being run there-Division 
Bench quashed the allotme11t as it doubted the bo11a fides of the allotments 
in question-Directions issued by Divisio11 Bench-Appeal before Supreme 
Court-<:011tention that the Division Be11ch was 11ot light in its co11clusion 
that allotme11t by public auctio11 is the 011ly mode of allotment-Held the 
directiolls issued by the Division Be11ch broadly ca11not be fou11d fault 
with-Several modes of disposal of property are available to developmellt 
autholity-One of the modes is public auctio11, a//otmellt or otherwise-Whe11 
public autholity discharges its public duty the word "otherwise" would be 
constnted to be consistent with the public purpose-<:lear a11d Ullequivoca/ 
guide/i!les or rules are necessary and 1101 the whim and fa11cy of the public 
autlwlities-In all cases relevalll criterion should be pre-detennined by 
specific rules or regulations a11d published for the public-Therefore, the 
public autholities are required to make necessary specific regulatio11s or valid 
guidelines to exercise their discretionary powers; otherwise, the salutary pro- G 
cedure would be by public aucti01i-1he Division Bench was light in holding 
E 
F 
that in the absence of such statut01y regulations exercise of discretionary 
power to allot sites to p1ivate institutions or persons was not co!Tect in 
law.-Order of Division Be11ch upheld subject to further directions issued by 
Supreme Cowt. 
H 
597 
598 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
Nos. 12256-59 of 1996 Etc. Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.3.96 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in LP.A. Nos. 1368-69/92, 1320 and 1319 of 1992. 
B 
P.P. Rao, Gopal Subramaniam, Ms. Charu Tuli, Ms. Suruchi Aggar-
wal, Mrs. Rekha Palli, A.V. Palli, Atul Sharma, Neeraj Kr. Jain and Ms. 
Abha R. Sharma for the Petitioners. 
Arnn Jaitely and P.N. Puri for the Respondents. 
C 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
In SLPs. except SLP Nos. 12720-23/96 
We have heard the counsel on both sides. These Special Leave 
Petitions have been filed against the order of the Division Bench of the 
D Punjab & Haryaria High Court in LP.A. No. 1368/92 and batch, dated 
March 1, 1996. The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) had 
invited applications for allotment of sites to establish the high schools, 
primary schools or nursery schools in the zone earmarked for the schools 
in Panchkula. Pursuant thereto, several institutions/persons including the 
E petitioners had applied for allotment of sites. HUDA had allotted, out of 
23 plots available, sites to 11 persons and denied allotment to eight persons. 
The non-allottees filed the writ petitions in the high Court challenging the 
validity of the procedure adopted by the HUDA in allotting sites to the 
schools. Though the learned single Judge found fault with the allotment, 
on finding and taking into consideration that pending writ petitions, the 
F petitioners and some of the respondents had constructed buildings and 
schools were being run at the allotted plots, he upheld their actions and 
dismissed the writ petitions with the observations mentioned therein. On 
appeal, the Division Bench set aside the order of the learned single Judge 
and while quashing the allotments made, issued directions as enumerated 
G thus: 
"(a) All the school sites required to be allotted or sold shall be 
notified afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act 
and the Regulations. All the petitioners, the private respondents 
and all other eligible persons shall be permitted to participate in 
H 
tho process of sale or allotment; 
NEW INDIA PUBLIC SCHOOL v. HUDA 
599 
(b) preference shall be given for sal

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