REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5779 OF 2008
Bihar State Housing Board & Ors. .... Appellant (s)
Versus
Asha Lata Verma .... Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
P. Sathasivam, J.
1) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and
order dated 02.07.2008 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Patna in L.P.A. No. 211 of 2008 whereby the
Division Bench of the High Court declined to interfere with the
order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the learned single Judge of
the High Court in CWJC No. 11753 of 2007 and disposed of
the appeal filed by the appellants herein.
2) Brief facts:
1
(a) In 1972, the Bihar State Housing Board (hereinafter
referred to as “the Board”) floated a Scheme for construction of
Flats for Middle Income Group (in short “MIG”) at Hanuman
Nagar, Patna. Ram Chandra Prasad Verma (since expired)
-the husband of the respondent submitted his application.
Subsequently, on demand being made, on 28.09.1978, he
deposited a sum of Rs.6500/- for allotment of a MIG
flat/house. The allotment fructified in his favour and MIG Flat
No. 171, Hanuman Nagar, Patna was allotted to him vide
Board’s Order No. 7273 dated 23.09.1981. After execution of
hire-purchase agreement, the possession was handed over to
him on 28.11.1981. At that time, the total cost of the flat
determined by the Board was Rs.66,382/-. The entire amount
was paid to the Board within the time prescribed.
(b) On 25.03.1991, the husband of the respondent died and
in the year 1992, she sought for transfer of the Flat in her
name. The flat was transferred in the name of the respondent
after furnishing the details of payment and other required
documents to the Board vide letter No. 1459 dated
05.05.1998.
2
(c) Later on, the respondent decided to transfer the flat in
favour of her daughter-in-law, Ms. Meera Verma and sought
transfer of the same. At this time, the Board raised a demand
of Rs. 3,64,419/- towards outstanding dues against the flat in
question vide Letter No. 2169 dated 29.06.2006, asking the
respondent to deposit the same by 31.07.2006.
(d) Against the said demand notice, the respondent filed writ
petition bearing CWJC No. 11753 of 2007 before the High
Court of Patna for quashing the same on the ground that the
payment of the flat had already been made in 144 equal
instalments and that the Board is not justified in raising such
demand and not entitled to re-determination/re-fixation of the
price after delivery of possession. The learned single Judge, by
order dated 07.02.2008, allowed the writ petition and quashed
the demand notice and directed the Board to grant permission
for transfer of the flat in favour of Ms. Meera Verma, daughter-
in-law of the respondent herein. The learned single Judge also
directed the Additional Director General of Vigilance, State of
Bihar to institute a case against the Board and to enquire into
the activities of the officials involved in the process of decision
3
making and also to initiate enquiry into the assets and
properties of such officials of the Board.
(e) Against the said order of the learned single Judge, the
Board filed appeal being L.P.A. No. 211 of 2008 before the
Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, by
impugned order dated 02.07.2008, declined to interfere with
the order passed by the learned single Judge disposed of the
appeal filed by the appellants herein. Aggrieved by the same,
the Board preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition
before this Court.
3) Heard Mr. S. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the
appellants-Board and Mr. Praneet Ranjan, learned counsel for
the respondent.
4) Since the learned single Judge of the High Court while
allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent expressed his
anguish over the manner in which the Board and its officials
are conducting its affairs, issued certain directions for
Vigilance inquiry, the Board being aggrieved by the said
directions filed an appeal before the Division Bench. The
4
Division Bench, by impugned order dated 02.07.2008, after
observing that since the Vigilance Department has already
started preliminary inquiry, declined to interfere with the order
passed by the learned single Judge. The Board is very much
aggrieved by the directions of the learned single Judge
directing Additional Director General of Vigilance, State of
Bihar to institute a case against the Board and to enquire into
the activities of all persons who are involved in the decision
making process as well as who have been responsible in
creating false accounts and raising false demands in relation
to the writ petitioner, namely, Asha Lata Verma. In the same
order, the learned single Judge also directed that an inquiry
into the assets and properties of such officials of the Board be
carried out to see whether they have been benefited at the cost
of innocent citizens.
5) Before considering the directions of the learned single
Judge asking the Additional Director General of Vigilance,
State of Bihar to enquire into the conduct of the officials of the
Board, we have to see the grievance of the respondent. The
5
grievance of the respondent is that even though entire money
for MIG flat bought by her husband in the year 1981 was paid
yet the officials of the Board acting in most arbitrary manner
have raised huge demand. By various orders of the High
Court, ultimately the Board transferred the ownership of the
flat in question in favour of daughter-in-law of the respondent.
Though the counsel appearing for the Board has stated that
the Board was justified in demanding an additional amount, in
the absence of such details and in view of the fact that now
the Board has transferred the title of the flat in favour of the
daughter-in-law of the respondent, as requested, we are not
inclined to go into the claim of the Board.
6) Let us consider the directions issued by the learned
single Judge in the foregoing paragraphs. The learned single
Judge having noticed that the cost of the flat as determined by
the Board was paid by the allotee, after the death of the
original allottee, his wife – respondent herein applied for
transferring the flat in her name, at this stage, the Board
officials required her to furnish proof of payments and other
documents which were duly furnished by her, thereafter
6
permission was granted for transfer of the flat in her name,
ultimately, on a request being made by the respondent for
transferring the said flat in the name of her daughter-in-law,
the officials of the Board calculated huge amount showing as
outstanding and with this background, the learned single
Judge examined the claim of the writ petitioner and
considered the stand of the Board. It is the grievance of the
Board that whether in a writ proceeding where the writ
petitioner challenged the demand notice issued by the Board,
the writ Court could have gone beyond the relief sought by the
petitioner and ordered an inquiry by the Vigilance Department
after registering FIR? It is also the grievance of the Board that
whether in a writ proceeding, the learned single Judge could
have ordered registration of FIR without there being an
allegation of any offence committed by anyone and whether in
the absence of any specific allegation, the learned single Judge
is justified in ordering a roving inquiry?
7
7) The learned single Judge took note of many findings and
observations of the High Court in several similar cases. It is
important to mention here that the learned single Judge while
passing the order dated 07.02.2008 placed reliance on the
following judgments, viz., Smt. Meera Mishra vs. State of
Bihar 2001 (3) PLJR 809, Sanjeev Kumar Singh vs.
Managing Director 2003 (2) PLJR 513 and Sita Devi vs.
Bihar State Housing Board 2007 (1) PLJR 246. It was
pointed out that these matters were either set aside or
modified or not applicable to the case on hand. In those
observations, the High Court has indicted the Board for its
mismanaged affairs and the manner in which it was
conducting its functioning. Heavily relying on those
observations and findings, the learned single Judge held that
the demand notice was totally unjustified and, therefore, it
was quashed and the Board was directed to issue permission
to the writ petitioner for transfer of the flat in favour of her
daughter-in-law. Having noticed the conduct of the Board, the
learned single Judge felt that its functionaries should be
subjected to an investigation by the State Vigilance and
8
accordingly a direction was issued to the Additional Director
General of Vigilance, State of Bihar to institute a case against
the Board and inquire into the activities of all persons who
were involved in the decision making process as well as who
have been responsible in creating false accounts and raising
false demands. The learned single Judge also directed to
enquire into the assets and properties of such officials of the
Board.
8) It is seen from the additional documents filed by the
Board that based on the direction of the learned single Judge,
Additional Director General Vigilance had sought opinion from
the Advocate General. By letter dated 19.07.2008, after
verifying the relief sought for by the writ petitioner and after
analyzing the directions of the learned single Judge and the
materials placed by the investigation team, the Advocate
General has opined that the materials, which are collected so
far during preliminary inquiry and placed on record do not
constitute any prima facie criminal offence against the officials
of the Board so as to warrant institution of a regular case.
The said report was placed before the learned single Judge by
9
the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, on 03.05.2010. After
going through the report of the Vigilance Department and the
opinion of the Advocate General, the learned single Judge
directed the Vigilance Department to spend more time on the
investigation and file a report on the issue since the earlier
report was not up to the expectation of the Court.
9) It is not in dispute that even as early as on 07.02.2008,
the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by
allowing the same and granted relief to the respondent and
ordered for Vigilance inquiry against the Board and its
officials. Thereafter, even though the L.P.A. filed by the Board
against the order of the learned single Judge was also
disposed of by the Division Bench, it is not clear and
understandable how the matter was heard by the learned
single Judge then and there. Even after perusing the report of
the Vigilance Department based on the opinion of the Advocate
General, the learned single Judge passed further order on
03.05.2010 and again directed the Vigilance Department to
submit further report. It is the grievance of the Board that
inasmuch as the writ petitioner has secured an appropriate
10
relief and in the absence of any specific claim/complaint
furnished with required details, the learned single Judge was
not justified in directing the Vigilance Department for roving
inquiry into the affairs of the Board.
10) It is not in dispute that the only question before the
learned single Judge was related to the demand notice issued
by the Board. No doubt, the petitioner therein has made
certain statements against the officials of the Board, however,
there is no specific complaint either by the writ petitioner or
anyone pointing mismanagement in the affairs of the Board. If
there is any specific complaint giving all the details,
undoubtedly, the Court can forward it to the forum concerned
for investigation and further action pursuant to the outcome of
the same. Merely on the basis of certain observations in the
orders of the High Court in other matters which were either
set aside or modified or not applicable to the case on hand, the
learned single Judge was not justified in issuing directions for
Vigilance inquiry. The direction also proceeds as if that the
officials of the Board benefited with the huge amount without
basing reliable and acceptable materials. Normally, the
11
function of the Court is to sort out the dispute raised and only
in exceptional cases that too when adequate materials are
there such inquiry can be ordered but not on the basis of the
general information, assumption or presumption. Apart from
this, after disposal of the writ petition as early as on
07.02.2008, how the learned single Judge assumed
jurisdiction and issued several directions in the matter.
11) In the light of the above discussion, we are satisfied that
the direction relating to inquiry by the Vigilance Department
and subsequent orders and directions by the learned single
Judge cannot be sustained. While confirming the order of the
learned single Judge relating to the relief granted to the
respondent, all other directions relating to the Board and its
officials are set aside. However, it is made clear that if there is
any specific complaint with facts and figures against any of
the officer of the Board, it is for the person concerned to move
the appropriate prosecuting agency and if any such complaint
is made, the agency is free to proceed in accordance with law.
12
12) The civil appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above.
There shall be no order as to costs.
……………………………………J.
(P. SATHASIVAM)
……………………………………J.
(H.L. GOKHALE)
NEW DELHI;
JULY 28, 2011.
13