LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus NERBUDDA VALLEY REFRIGERATED PRODUCTS COMPANY PVT. LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2010] 8 S.C.R. 982 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. NERBUDDA VALLEY REFRIGERATED PRODUCTS COMPANY PVT. LTD & ORS. (Civil Appeal NO. 5883 OF 2010 etc.) JULY 23, 2010 [P. SATHASIVAM AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226 - Exercise of writ jurisdiction in the matters falling in the domain of executive - High Court in a writ petition setting aside the order of Nazul Officer by which he rejected petitioner's application for NOC filed without payment D of lease rent - HELD: The Nazul Officer is better equipped with to decide the application for grant of NOC - Even if the order of Nazul Officer requires interference, the person aggrieved could challenge the same before the Collector u/s 18 of the Revenue Book Circular - It is not such a case which E warrants direct interference by High Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 - Revenue Book Circular (Madhya Pradesh) - s. 18 - Constitutional Law - Separation of powers. F Contempt of Court: Contempt petition - In a writ petition High Court directing Nazul Officer to decide the application for NOC filed by writ petitioner and to consider particular documents only - Nazul Officer on consideration of the relevant rules and regulations, G rejecting the application - High Court directing the Nazul Officer to explain his "misconduct" - HELO: When a matter is remitted to original authority, it must be allowed to take a decision in accordance with the statutory provisions, rules and regulations and there cannot be any restriction on such a H 982 STATE OF M. P. v. NERBUDDA VALLEY REFRIGERATED 983 PRODUCTS COMPANY course - Even if there is an error in the order of the original A authority, it is for the appellate authority to set it right and the High Court is not justified in issuing the direction - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Practice and Procedure. B The appellant-State executed a lease deed in favour of respondent no.1-company in respect of certain land on 14.3.1939 for a term of 30 years for the purpose of developing trade in refrigerated food stuffs and industries. The lease was being renewed with 30 years C term and lastly it was renewed for a period of 30 years from 14.3.1999 to 13.3.2029. By letter dated 16.1.2004 the State Government permitted the respondent company to change the use of the leased land from industrial purpose to commercial D and residential purpose on payment of lease rent as assessed in terms of the rules and regulations. On 6.3.2007, the respondent-company made an application before the Nazul Officer for grant of NOC for raising commercial and residential constructions on the leased E land without paying the lease rent. The Nazul Officer rejected the application by order dated 15.4.2008. The order was challenged by the respondent-company in a writ petition. An objection was raised by the State Government as to maintainability of the writ petition in F view of the alternative remedy u/s 18 of the Revenue Book Circular. However, the High Court, by its order dated 26.9.2008, directed the Nazul Officer to decide the application of the respondent-company and to consider only the Circular dated 14.2.1966 and the arbitration G award while taking the decision. The Nazul Officer considered the relevant rules and regulations, and rejected the application by order dated 2.2.2009. The respondent-company filed a contempt petition before the H 984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R. A High Court which, by its order dated 13.10.2009, directed the Nazul Officer to personally present himself before the Court and explain his "misconduct". Aggrieved, the State Government filed the appeals. B Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution of India between three organs of the State, i.e., the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. It is also well established principle that one C organ of the State should not ordinarily encroach into the domain of another. Even if the order of the first authority, in the case on hand, the Nazul Officer, requires interference, it is for the appellate authority to look into it and take a decision one way or the other and it is not an D extraordinary case which warrants direct interference by the High Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, as an appellate co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.