VILLIANUR IYARKKAI PADUKAPPU MAIYAM versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 225 · Decided: 14-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 9 S.C.R. 225 
VILLIANUR IYARKKAI PADUKAPPU MAIYAM 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 3572 of 2009) 
MAY 14, 2009 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI., P. SATHASIVAM AND J.M. 
PANCHAL, JJ.] 
DEVELOPMENT OF PORTS: 
A 
B 
c 
Pondicherry Port - Development of - Government of 
Pondicherry entering into a concession agreement with a 
developer - The Development Project was on Build Operat(!J 
and Transfer (BOT) basis. -
Issue of Government 
Memorandum by which existing movable/immovable assets·· 0 
of the port were to be handed over to the developer -
' 
Challenged in High Court by way of Writ Petitions -
Dismissed by the High Court - On appeal, Held: Port of 
Pondicherry being a minor port, Government of Pondicherry 
has the necessary jurisdiction and control to develop the port 
E 
- On the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said 
that the Government of Pondicherry had acted arbitrarily or 
that the Letter of Intent was issued in favour of the developer 
with oblique motives - The Government adopted a pragmatic 
approach and proceeded to shortlist the developer directly 
F 
and acted in the best interests of the State to overcome the 
failed attempts in the past to develop the Pondicherry Port -
Thus the Supreme Court being a constitutional court not 
expected to presume alleged irregularities, illegalities or 
unconstitutionality- Nor would it be justified in substituting its 
opinion for the bonafide opinion of the State Government - It G 
cannot be said that the project was cleared without the 
environmental aspects in total violation of Precautionary and 
Trusteeship Principles - In fact it was done - Plea that the · 
Government of Pondicherry could not have taken the decision 
225 
H 
·-· 
226 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 
A to privatize the Pondicherry Port without consent/approval of 
the Central Government is rejected as misconceived - Grant 
of Letter of Intent or execution of Concession Agreement in 
favour of the developer for development of the Port on BOT 
basis cannot be regarded as gifting public largesse - Any 
B 
ancillary development cannot be characterized as real estate 
business - Issue of Public Tender - In view of the facts, there 
was no requirement - Constitution of India, Articles 162, 239, 
239A - Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, Section 
18 - Pondicherry (Laws) Regulation, 1963, Regulation 6(b) 
c - Rules of Business of the Government of Pondicherry, Rule 
5(2), Delegation of Financial Rules, Rule 21 - Pondicherry 
Administrative Act, 1962, Section 5 -
Pondicherry 
Administration Regulation Act, 1963, Section 3 - Indian Potts 
Act, 1908, Section 3(9). 
D 
PUBLIC INTEREST LJTiGA T/ON: 
E 
Locus standi -
Challenging policy decision of the 
Government in Pl(... is impermissible - Policy decision of 
Government - Interference with. 
·PRACTICE & PROCEDURE: 
Concession made before Court - Submission before the 
Court that only environmental impacts of the Project and not 
· selection of the Developer, were raised - Recorded by the 
F High Court - Certainly a concession - No application was 
filed before the High Court making a grievance that 
concession was never made and /or was wrongly recorded by 
the Court - Hence, it is a concession and binding on the 
appellants - Now, they cannot canvass for challenging the 
G selection of the developer. 
SUPREME COURT RULES, 1960: 
Order XVI Rule 4(b) - List of dates in chronological order 
with relevant material facts or events pertaining to each of the 
H dates - Furnishing of """' Filing of inaccurate and incomplete 
' \_ 
_...._. --
t 
. 
I 
-{ 
VILLIANUR IYARKKAI PADUKAPPU MAIYAM v. 
227 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
f; 
list of dates causing confusion and waste of time of the Court 
A 
- Such practice of filing incomplete/inaccurate list of dates 
and events deprecated - Practice & Procedure. 
JUDICIAL REVIEW· 
It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope 
B 
of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a 
particular policy is wise or whether better public policy can be 
evolved - Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy 
merely because a different policy would have been fairer or 
wiser or more scientific or more logical -
Wisdom and c 
advisability of economic policy are not ordinarily amenable 
to judicial review. 
LEGAL PRINCIPLES/DOCTRINE: 
Precautionary principle -
Trusteeship principle· -
D 
..i 
Applicability of 
For the development of Pondicherry Port, the 
Gover

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