LexNOIDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSOCIATION versus NOIDA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 8 S.C.R. 25 NOIDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSOCIATION v. NOIDA & ORS. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 150 of 1997) MAY 9, 2011 [G.S. SINGHVI AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] A B Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13 - Criminal misconduct by public servant - Land scam - Respondent no.4 was CEO, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority C (NO/DA) in 1993-1994 - A/legation that during this period, he committed three acts of misconduct - 1) that he allotted contracts worth Rs. 10 crores to different contractors on selection basis without inviting tenders; 2) that he caused financial loss to NO/DA by not paying conversion charges with D respect to the plot allotted to him and 3) that at his instance a 13 hectwe City Park situated in NO/DA was destroyed and by changing the land use, a new residential Sector in violation of the Master Plan was carved out comprising of 200 plots - Held: The a/legations being of a very serious nature and as E alleged, the respondent no.4 having passed orders in colourable exercise of power favouring himself and certain contractors, require investigation - Central Bureau of . Investigation (CBI) directed to have preliminary enquiry and in case the allegations are found having some substance F warranting further proceeding with criminal prosecution, it may proceed in accordance with law - U. P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 - ss.6(2)(b) & 6(2)(c), 8, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19 - U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 - ss. 30, 32, 40 to 47, 49, 50, 51, 53 and 58 - New Okhla G Industrial Development Area (Preparation and Finalisation of Plan) Regulations 1991. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.468-471 and 473 - Delay in launching criminal prosecution - Held: Cannot 25 H 26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R. A itself be a ground for dismissing the complaint, but may be a circumstance to be taken into consideration in arriving at a final decision - More so, the issue of limitation has to be examined in the light of the gravity of the charge. B Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings against retired /AS officer - Maintainability of - Held: On facts, the disciplinary proceedings were time barred - All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958·- Rule 6(b). Rule of Law - Held: The Rule of Law is the foundation of C a democratic society - It prohibits arbitrary action and commands the authority concerned to act in accordance with law. Public Authority - Obligation of the State or its o instrumentality - Public Trust Doctrine -Held: Action of the State or its instrumentality must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance - In essence, the action/order of the State or State· instrumentality would stand vitiated if it lacks bona tides, as it would only be E a case of co/ourable exercise of power - The power vested by the State in a Public Authority ·should be viewed as a trust coupled with duty to be exercised in larger public and social interest - An Authority is under a legal obligation to exercise the power rea$onab/y and in good faith to effectuate the F purpose for which power stood conferred - In this context, "in good faith" means "for legitimate reasons" - It must be exercised bona fide for the purpose and for none other - Doctrines/Principles - Principle of legitimate expectation - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 21. G Doctrines/Principles - Principle of "quando aliquid H prohibetur, prohibetur at omne per quod devenitur ad il/ud" - Meaning of - Held: Whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance. • NOIDA ENTREPRENEURS ASSOCIATION v. NOIDA & 27 ORS. Administrative Law - Act done in undue haste - Effect A of - Held: In case an authority proceeds in undue haste, the Court may draw an adverse inference from such conduct. Respondent no.4 was the CEO, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) in 1993-94. It was alleged 8 that during this period he committed three acts of misconduct - 1) that he allotted contracts worth Rs.10 crores to different contractors on selection basis without inviting tenders; 2) that he caused financial loss to NOIDA by not paying conversion charges with respect to the C plot allotted to him and 3) that at his instance, a 13 hectare City Park situated in NOIDA was destroyed and· by changing the land use, a new residential Sector in v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.