LexSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
)- > • ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA A v. PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST AND ORS. JANUARY 4, 2007 [Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] B Strictures : Expunction of adverse remarks-Chief Minister endorsing 'please put up' on application addressed to him for allotment of plots by Societies- Applications forwarded to the Authority for pocessing-Allotment of land C to the Societies-Unwarranted observations made against Chief Minister by High Court-Appeal by State for expunging of remarks-Held: Notation 'please put up' by Chief Minister merely means that the Department should process the applications in accordance with the procedure -It does not mean approval-High Court erred in making observations regarding notations made in files on their own reading and interpretation of the files-Chief Minister not made party to the case nor called for explanation-- Also, appeal by State maintainable since observations and strictures made by High Court would affect working and functioning of office of Chief Minister-Thus, strictures/observations/remarks made by High Court not warranted and are expunged-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 21, 226 and 132. Expunction of remarks-Passing of commentslobservationslstricturers against an individual not party to the proceedings nor direction made to be party and without giving him hearing-Held : Such act amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice-It would have wide ramifications and adverse impact on the career of the individual-He has right to have his reputation-Thus, such comments/observations structures made not warranted and are expunged-Constitution of India, 1950- Articles 21, 226 and 132. D E F G With regard to Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2007, CIDCO-Corporation grants plots in Navi Mumbai for construction and development under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 read with prevalent development control regulations for Navi Mumbai. Respondent Nos. 5to10- Societies filed applications for allotment of residential plot for housing H 'ir7 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I S.C.R A society to the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra who was also the Minister for Urban Development. It was stated that CIDCO may allot the plot for residential purposes as per the prevailing rules. The then Chief Minister made noting on the five applications "please put up". The applications were forwarded to the Authority-CIDCO for processing and B they added their endorsements reading please process early or words to that effec't. Chief Minister did not make any other noting or endorsement on the said files. The sixth application though addressed to the Chief Minister, but no endorsement was made by the Chief Minister on the said file. At no stage the file reached the office of the Chief Minister. CIDCO processed the six applications and made allotments of land to the co- C operative housing societies. Public Interest Litigation was filed challenging the allotments to the six Cooperative Housing Societies. High Court called for the files relating to the allotment and set aside the allotment. It on its own conclusions and interpretations of the file notations without calling for any explanation, made certain unwarranted observations as regards the D making of the application to the then Chief Minister as also the notation "please put up" made by the then Chief Minister in the five applications. Hence the present appeal for expunging of certain remarks made by High Court agaiQst·the then Chief Minister. E F G H With regard to Civil Appeal No. 15 of2007, Public Interest Litigation was filed. High Court disposed of the writ petition making certain observations against the appellant, then appointed as Managing Director- CIDCO even though he was not a party to the said proceedings nor was directed to be made a party to the PIL. It was observed that during the tenure of the appellant plots of certain project were allotted in contravention of conditions of allotment and the scrutiny was given a complete go-by and as such there was a complete dereliction of duty. The Authorities were directed to take appropriate action against the persons concerned. Charge sheet was issued to the appellant. Government sought action against the appellant by the tribunal since the High Court directed so. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeal of the State and partly allowing the appeal of the Managing Director-CIDCO
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.