HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
W.P.No.4552 of 1998
Dr.Rajendra Dubey
...Petitioners
-Vs-
State of M.P. & others
...Respondents
For the Petitioner: Shri P.Diwakar, Advocate.
^ For respondents No.1 to 5 : Dr.N.K.Shukla,
Addl.A.G. with Shri
G.Bhaduri, Govt. Advocate
For respondent No.6 Shri Vivek Sibbal with Shri
B.P.Sharma, Advocate.
Hon'ble Justice Shri- FAKHRUDDIN
Date: 15/03/2002
: O R D E R
By this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing
of the allotment order dated 05.8.1994 (Annexure P/1)
issued in favour of respondent no.6 and the impugned order
of advance possession dated 22.8.1994 (Annexure P-2). It
is further prayed that respondents 1 to 5 be directed to
issue allotment order with delivery of possession in
respect of plot in dispute, in favour of the present
petitioner.
(2) Petitioner submits that he is the Secretary of Yug
Chetna Publication, Raipur which is the Unit of Yug Dharma
and applied for allotment of land (Annexure P-3)
admeasuring 417138 sq.ft. situated at Block no.9, plot
no.1 x 1 at Rajbandha Talab, Civil Station, Raipur. It is
submitted that there was Press Complex categorized by the
State Government and the local Authority and various parts
thereof have been allotted to different pressmen. It is
submitted that on receipt of the application in the office
of respondent no.4/Collector, Raipur, no objection
certificates were demanded and petitioner obtained No
Objection Certificates dated 9.7.1990 and 16.7.1990
(Annexures P-4 and P-5) from the concerned authorities.
It is further submitted that while petitioner’s
application was under process, respondent no.6 made an
application to the then Chief Minister for allotment of
land for press complex vide letter dt.4.8.90 (Annexure
P.10). Then the said letter was forwarded by Chief
Minister’s Secretariat. The matter was thereafter
processed.
(3) In para 5.8 of the writ petition, it is stated “that
the petitioner was absolutely innocent and ignorant about
the foul play at the hands of the respondent ignited by
respondent no.6 and generated through/by the then Chief
Minister, on his pursuit to claim the allotment of the
land for which he had lawfully applied on the basis of his
entitlement flowing from the long established publication
of the Yugdharma newspaper and when no response is flown
from the end of respondent, the present petitioner started
approaching respondents 1 to 5 independently demanding all
the reasons for delay in the process of allotment in his
favour. The petitioner submitted the latest
reminder/application dated 26.2.1997 to respondent No.5
vide Annexure P.14”.
Grounds urged by the petitioner are that
hostile discrimination has been adopted and the petitioner
has been kept in darkness and that the allotment has been
made illegally and contrary to law.
(4) Dr.N.K. Shukla, Addl. Advocate General for the State
submits that so far as allegations made against the then
Chief Minister are concerned, that Chief Minister has not
been impleaded as party respondent and as such, in the
absence of he being joined as party respondent, the
allegations made against him do not require any
adjudication. Even otherwise what has been alleged is
that the office of the then Chief Minister’s Secretariat
forwarded the petitioner’s letter. Thereafter respondent
no.6 made an application. Shri Shukla submits that it has
become a common practice that the letters are addressed to
Chief Minister and other dignitaries, which is not at all
healthy. However, once such letters are received, they
are required to be dealt with by the Secretariat. It is
for the respective authorities to take appropriate steps.
(5) Dr. N.K. Shukla,. Learned Additional Advocate General
further submits that the main question is of delay, the
allotment has been made on 5.08.1994 and the petitioner
submitted his letter dated 26.02.1997 and this writ
petition has been filed on 19.9.1998 that is after a
lapse of considerable period. No explanation for such
delay has been given and as such this petition suffers
from delay and laches.
(6) Dr. Shukla, further submits that according to the
petitioner’s own showing the land has since been allotted
construction is going on, and now when rights have accrued
in favour of other allottees, civil suit is appropriate
remedy for petitioner in view of the disputed questions of
fact. He further submits that this petition has been
filed by the petitioner in his individual capacity, but
not on behalf of Yug Chetna Prakashan, the petitioner
wants the land for his individual purpose rather than as
owner of the Press, therefore, no cause of action does
arise in this petition.
(7) Dr. Shukla, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate further
submits that respondents 1 to 5 have filed return in which
it has been stated that Policy regarding allotment has
been taken that no land exceeding 43360 sq.ft. could be
allotted to any press, as such the petitioner is not
entitled to any land exceeding 43360 sq.ft. He submits
that total land available and earmarked is 834276 sq.ft.
whereas petitioner has applied for 417138 sq.ft. which is
more than half of the total land available.
(8) Dr. Shukla, Counsel for respondents 1 to 5 further
submits that while processing the case of the petitioner,
he was asked to submit registration certificate of his
establishment and the petitioner was also asked to
furnish the details as to the quantum of bank balance of
the petitioner vide order sheet dated 14.11.1990
(Annexure R-2), but he did not give any such
information. It is also submitted that he did not indicate
whether the institution Yug Chetna Prakashan was
registered anywhere and in absence of such information
the case being incomplete was returned by the Government
vide letter dated 20.10.1995 (Annexure R 4). The
respondents submit that the petitioner has not disclosed
whether the Yug Chetna Prakashan is a registered
institution and as the petition filed in individual
capacity it seems that the petitioner wants the land in
his individual capacity rather than as owner of the Press.
The respondents have also filed additional return in which
it has been stated that in view of Memo dated 30.06.1991
(Annexure R 5) it was made clear that no land exceeding
43360 sq.fts could be allotted to any Press. It is
submitted that thereafter, the petitioner preferred
application for allotment of land, a case was registered
by the Nazul Officer and the proceedings were going on and
from the order sheets vide annexure R-6 it is clear that
petitioner was asked to furnish the details vide order
dated 3.8.1990 and when the matter was taken up on
14.8.1990, petitioner sought time and on 25.8.1990 when
the matter was taken up, petitioner was again granted time
to furnish the details in proforma. On 18.3.1991 the
matter was referred to the Commissioner, Raipur, for being
forwarded to the Secretary, Revenue Department, for onward
action. The matter was received back by the Nazul Officer
on 1.1.1996 from the State Government with a note that the
application should be preferred in prescribed format. On
25.1.1997 the petitioner wanted progress of the case vide
annexure R 7 and on the same letter it was informed to him
that State Government had directed that application should
be in prescribed proforma. On 26.2.1997 the petitioner
gave a letter asking for information as to whether the
land sought by the petitioner has been allotted to
respondent No. 6 and if it has been allotted to respondent
No. 6 then the application in prescribed proforma was not
required. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that
there is no right as such available to the petitioner to
claim any relief in this petition.
(9) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(10) A perusal of the order sheets (Annexure R-6) show
that the petitioner himself was not interested in
furnishing the details as required by the Nazul Officer,
in prescribed proforma. On petitioner’s own showing he
wrote a letter on 26.2.97(Annexure-14) to the Nazul
Officer to ascertain as to whether the land applied by him
had been allotted to respondent no.6 and if the land had
been allotted to respondent no.6/Dainik Samvet Shiker,
then the application in prescribed format was not
required. The petitioner thereafter did not do anything.
Even no notice of demand of justice was served. It is
further stated that the order of allotment was passed on
5.8.1994, possession was delivered by 22.8.1994
petitioner has submitted his letter on 26.2.1997 and this
petition has been filed on 19.9.1998 that is after lapse
of long time and no explanation has been given for such
long delay. It is also pointed out that during the
intervening period, five institutions have also been
allotted land in block no.9 of the press complex, but
none of them have been impleaded as parties. Though the
parties i.e. State through the Principal Secretary,
Revenue Dept. Bhopal; the Director, Public Relations Dept.
Bhopal; the Commissioner, Raipur, have been joined, but no
notice of demand of justice has been served. Even
respondent No.5 the Nazul Officer and respondent no.6, the
Chief Executive, Daily Samvet Shikher, Raipur were not
served the notice of demand of justice.
(11) Present petition is in the personal capacity and not
as Secretary of Yugchetan Prakashan. It is pointed out
that even in this application, prayer for allotment of
the land has been made on behalf of the Yug Chetna
Prakashan and it was not for the petitioner. Respondents
have filed order sheets containing the proceedings
recorded by the Nazul Officer. The order sheet dated
3.8.90 has been referred to where certain information was
asked as to “whether the Yugdharm was registered,
whether they have their own sources” It is stated that
this information was never submitted and again time was
sought. Then the matter was referred to the Dept. of
Revenue, State Government of M.P. and the Government has
directed that the information in proforma be called for.
From the order sheet dated 1.1.1996 it is clear that the
applicant has been informed to furnish the details in
prescribed proforma -`A’ In the order sheet` dated
20.3.1997, it was noted that the case of the petitioner
was forwarded and considered and accordingly, the
petitioner was informed the decision of the Revenue
Department, State of M.P. for allotment of land measuring
43360 in Block No.9, Plot No. 1/1. It is also pointed
out that there was a policy and according to that policy
it was only 43360 sq. ft. which could be allotted whereas
the claim of petitioner was for 417000 sq.ft. of land
which is more than half of the total land available and
earmarked.
(12) In support of his contention, learned counsel
for the respondents relied on a judgment of Supreme Court
reported in (1986) 4 SCC 566 (State of M.P. -v- Nandlal
Jaiswal and others) wherein the Apex Court has held as
follows:
“The power of the High Court to issue an
appropriate writ under article 226 is discretionary
and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion
does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent
or the acquiescent and the lethargic. Where there is
inordinate and unexplained delay and third party
rights are created in the intervening period the High
Court would decline to interfere even if the State
action complained of is unconstitutional or illegal
because the Courts interference is likely to cause
confusion and public inconvenience and bring in new
injustices. However, there may be a few cases, where
the demand of justice is so compelling that the High
Court would be inclined to interfere inspite of delay
or creation of third party rights. Ultimately, it
would be a matter within the discretion of the Court.
Ex-hypothesi every discretion must be exercised
fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to
defeat it.”
Regarding delay and laches, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied on a judgment of Supreme Court
reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489 (Ramana Dayaram Shetty – Vs
– International Airport Authority of India and Others .
The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:
“Moreover the writ petition was filed by the
appellant more than 5 months after the acceptance of
the tender of respondents 4 and during this period,
respondents 4 incurred considerable expenditure
aggregating to about Rs.1,25,000/- in making
arrangements for putting up the restaurant and the
snack bars and in fact set up the snack bars and
started running the same. It would now be most
inequitous to set aside the contracts of respondents
4 at the instances of the appellant. The position
would have been different if the appellant had filed
the writ petition immediately after the acceptance of
the tender of respondents 4 but the appellant allowed
a period of over 5 months to elapse during which
respondents 4 altered their position. We are,
therefore, of the view that this is not a fit case in
which we should interfere and grant relief to the
appellant in the exercise of our discretion under
Articles 226 of the Constitution.”
(Emphasissupplied)
(13) It has already been noted that although some
allegations have been made regarding conduct and
involvement of the then Chief Minister, but as the Chief
Minister has not been joined as party respondent and even
notice for demand of justice has not been served and no
material regarding those allegations have come on record,
detailed discussion and adjudication on this aspect is not
required. Even otherwise, it is pointed out that the
office of Chief Minister’s Secretariat has forwarded the
petitioner’s letter and thereafter respondent no.6 himself
submitted the application in prescribed proforma and the
matter was processed and the State has informed that the
land has been allotted as per the policy which they had
and that policy was in existence for about 18 years, which
was made known to every body. The petitioner ought to have
made suitable application in prescribed proforma this
petition is also not on behalf of the organization, but on
behalf of an individual.
(14) Dr.N.K.Shukla, counsel for the State submitted that
the State has no malice towards any person, now the new
State of Chhattisgarh has been formed and the State
Government of Chattisgarh has no malice. Petitioner, if
so desired, may make suitable application in prescribed
proforma. In case such an application is made, then the
State shall consider the same afresh on its own merits in
accordance with law.
In view of what has been stated above, this
petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/- FAKHRUDDIN
JUDGE