{"id":219779,"date":"2011-05-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-05-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011"},"modified":"2017-06-30T02:53:51","modified_gmt":"2017-06-29T21:23:51","slug":"noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011","title":{"rendered":"Noida Entrepreneurs Assocn vs N O I D A & Ors on 9 May, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Noida Entrepreneurs Assocn vs N O I D A & Ors on 9 May, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: . B Chauhan<\/div>\n
Bench: G.S. Singhvi, B.S. Chauhan<\/div>\n
                                                                                     Reportable\n\n\n                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA\n\n                   CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION\n\n\n              WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 150 OF 1997\n\n\n\n\nNOIDA Entrepreneurs Association                                     .....Petitioner  \n\n                                        Versus\n\nNOIDA & Ors.                                                        .....Respondents \n\n\n\n\n                               J U D G M E N T   \n<\/pre>\n
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN,  J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
        1.      The   Legislature   of   Uttar   Pradesh   enacted   the   U.P. <\/p>\n
Industrial   Area   Development   Act,   1976,   (hereinafter   referred   to   as <\/p>\n
`Act   1976′)   for  the   purpose   of  proper   planning  and   development   of <\/p>\n
industrial and residential units and to acquire and develop the land for <\/p>\n
the   same.     The   New   Okhla   Industrial   Development   Authority <\/p>\n
(hereinafter referred to as  the `Authority’), has been constituted under <\/p>\n
the said Act, 1976. The object of the Act had been that genuine and <\/p>\n
deserving   entrepreneurs   may   be   provided   industrial   and   residential <\/p>\n
plots and other necessary amenities and facilities.   Thus, in order to <\/p>\n
carry   out   the   aforesaid   object,   a   new   township   came   into   existence. <\/p>\n
All   the   activities   in   the   Authority     had   to   be   regulated   in   strict <\/p>\n
adherence   to   all   the   statutory   provisions   contained   in   relevant   Acts, <\/p>\n
Rules  and  Regulations  framed for  this  purpose.    However,  from the <\/p>\n
very   inception   of   the   township,   there   has   always   been   a   public   hue <\/p>\n
and   cry   that   officials   responsible   for   managing   the   Authority   are <\/p>\n
guilty   of   manipulation,   nepotism   and   corruption.     Wild   and   serious <\/p>\n
allegations of a very high magnitude had been leveled against some of <\/p>\n
the officials carrying out the responsibilities of implementing the Act <\/p>\n
and other statutory provisions.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
 2.      The   instant   writ   petition   was   originally   filed   seeking   a   large <\/p>\n
 number of reliefs including the allotment of industrial and residential <\/p>\n
 plots   to   the   members   of   the   petitioner-Association   and   a   large <\/p>\n
 number   of   officials   who   had   acted   as   Chief   Executive   Officers <\/p>\n
 (hereinafter   referred   to   as   `CEO’)   of   the   Authority   had   been <\/p>\n
 impleaded therein as respondents.  However, considering the fact that <\/p>\n
 relief   for   personal   benefits   of   the   members   had   been   sought   and <\/p>\n
 alternative   means   for   seeking   the   redressal   of     grievances   in   that <\/p>\n
 respect were available, the petitioner made a request to the Court that <\/p>\n
 its   petition   may   be   treated   as   a   public   interest   litigation   (in   short <\/p>\n
 `PIL’) for a limited purpose.  This Court vide order dated 21.4.1997 <\/p>\n
 treated  the matter as PIL  and issued show cause notice only to the <\/p>\n
 extent of the following reliefs:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
           “(1)   Issue   writ   of   mandamus   and\/or   any <\/p>\n
           appropriate   writ   and direct   the CBI  to  investigate <\/p>\n
           into all the land allotments and conversion of lands <\/p>\n
           made by the NOIDA  during the past 10 years.<\/p>\n
           (2)     Issue an appropriate  writ  and directions  and <\/p>\n
           frame   guidelines   for   allotment   of   lands   by   the <\/p>\n
           NOIDA.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
3.     Dr.   Rajeev   Dhavan,   learned   senior   counsel   who   had   been <\/p>\n
appearing for the petitioner in the matter was requested by this Court <\/p>\n
vide order dated 29.8.1997 to act as Amicus Curiae.          <\/p>\n
                  The matter  was heard several times by this Court and after <\/p>\n
scrutinising  of  a very  large  number  of documents, the  Court was  of <\/p>\n
the   opinion   that   the   allegations   made   in   the   petition   required <\/p>\n
investigation.     Thus,   vide   order   dated   15.12.1997,   this   Court   issued <\/p>\n
notice to the State of U.P. to indicate  its consent to an investigation <\/p>\n
being   made   by   the   Central   Bureau   of   Investigation   (hereinafter <\/p>\n
referred   to   as   CBI),   in   view   of   the   very   serious   nature   of   the <\/p>\n
allegations.   The   State   of   U.P.   had   also   received   similar   complaints <\/p>\n
and   thus,   it   constituted   a   Commission   of   Inquiry   headed   by   Justice <\/p>\n
Murtaza Hussain, a former Judge of Allahabad High Court to enquire <\/p>\n
about the same.  The Commission completed its task and submitted its <\/p>\n
report. The said report was also placed before this Court in the first <\/p>\n
week of January 1998. As the report indicated, prima facie view of the <\/p>\n
                                                                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
Commission,   that   Mrs.   Neera   Yadav,   IAS,   respondent   no.7   had <\/p>\n
committed serious irregularities and illegalities, a copy of the report of <\/p>\n
the Commission was also directed to be given to her   and this Court <\/p>\n
vide order dated 6.1.1998 asked the State of U.P. as to whether this <\/p>\n
report   had   been   accepted   by   the   State   Government   and,   if   so,   what <\/p>\n
was   the   likely   follow   up   measure   pursuant   thereto.     The   State <\/p>\n
Government   submitted   a   reply   in   response   to   the   said   show   cause <\/p>\n
pointing   out   that   the   State   Government   proposed   to   initiate <\/p>\n
disciplinary proceedings against her.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
4.     In   view   of   the   material   on   record,   this   Court   expressed <\/p>\n
tentative opinion that it would  be more appropriate that the matter is <\/p>\n
investigated   by   the   CBI   and   if   such   investigation   discloses   the <\/p>\n
commission   of   criminal   offence(s),   the   persons   found   responsible <\/p>\n
should be prosecuted in a criminal court.   However, considering the <\/p>\n
fact   that   allegations   of  a   very   high  magnitude   and  gravity   had  been <\/p>\n
made against a large number of officials, this Court wanted the CBI to <\/p>\n
investigate first the cases against Mrs. Neera Yadav, IAS, respondent <\/p>\n
no.7, as is evident from the proceedings dated 20.1.1998, which reads <\/p>\n
as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           “For the time being, we are directing the CBI to <\/p>\n
           conduct   an   investigation   in   respect   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                                                    4<\/span><\/p>\n
            irregularities   in   the   matter   of   allotments   and <\/p>\n
            conversions of the plots………..<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    Shri G.L. Sanghi, the learned senior counsel <\/p>\n
            appearing   for   respondent   no.7   states   that   though <\/p>\n
            the   respondent   no.7   does   not   admit   that     she   has <\/p>\n
            committed   any   irregularity   in   the   matter   of <\/p>\n
            allotment   or   conversion   of   plots   in   NOIDA   but <\/p>\n
            according   to   respondent   no.7  there   are   other <\/p>\n
            persons   who   might   have   committed   such <\/p>\n
            irregularity   and   she   seeks   leave   to   file   an <\/p>\n
            affidavit   in   this   regard.     She   may   file   an <\/p>\n
            affidavit   giving   particulars   of   such   irregular <\/p>\n
            allotments and in the event of such affidavit being <\/p>\n
            filed  further   directions   in   that   regard   will   be <\/p>\n
            given.”          (Emphasis added)<\/p>\n
This   Court   by   the   same   order   also   issued   certain   directions   with <\/p>\n
regard to irregular allotments and conversion of plots which had been <\/p>\n
found   to   have   been   made   in   the   report   of   Justice   Murtaza   Hussain <\/p>\n
Commission.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.      In view of the above referred to order, Mrs. Neera Yadav, IAS, <\/p>\n
respondent   no.7   filed   her   affidavit   with   regard   to   irregularities <\/p>\n
committed   by   other   officers,   namely,   Shri   P.K.   Mishra,   respondent <\/p>\n
no.5;   Shri   Bijendra   Sahay,   respondent   no.8;   Shri   Ravi   Mathur, <\/p>\n
respondent   no.4;   and   one   Shri   S.C.   Tripathi.     The   affidavit   filed   by <\/p>\n
Mrs. Neera Yadav, IAS, respondent no.7 was considered by this Court <\/p>\n
on   24.2.1998   and   took   note   of   the   fact   that   in   respect   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
same\/similar   allegations   made   against   Shri   Bijendra   Sahay, <\/p>\n
respondent   no.8,   the   State   Government     had   already   accepted   his <\/p>\n
explanation.  So far as the allegations made against Shri Ravi Mathur, <\/p>\n
IAS,  and Shri P.K. Mishra, respondent nos. 4 and 5 respectively and <\/p>\n
one Shri S.C. Tripathi are concerned, the State Government vide order <\/p>\n
dated 18.7.1997 had referred the same to the Chairman of  the Board <\/p>\n
of Revenue for inquiry and the same was pending.  <\/p>\n
6.     In   the   meanwhile,   Shri   Mahinder   Singh   Yadav,   husband   of <\/p>\n
Mrs. Neera Yadav, IAS, respondent no.7 and one Shri Bali Ram, Ex. <\/p>\n
Member   of   Parliament   also   filed   complaints   against   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
officials   in   1996-1997,   which   were   also   referred   to   the   Chairman, <\/p>\n
Board of Revenue for inquiry.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.     One   Shri   Naresh   Pratap   Singh   also   filed   a   complaint   against <\/p>\n
some   officers   including   Shri   Ravi   Mathur,   IAS,   respondent   no.4   on <\/p>\n
27.6.1997 before the Lok-Ayukta of U.P.   However, the Lok-Ayukta <\/p>\n
vide   letter   dated   21.4.1998   to   the   State   Government   expressed   his <\/p>\n
inability   to   conduct   an   enquiry   against   Shri   Ravi   Mathur,   IAS, <\/p>\n
respondent no.4 and suggested that the matter be referred to the CBI.  <\/p>\n
                                                                                 6<\/span><\/p>\n
8.     This   Court   vide   order   dated   11.1.2005   constituted   a <\/p>\n
Commission   headed   by     Justice   K.T.   Thomas   to   examine   a   large <\/p>\n
number   of   issues,   including   as   to   why   disciplinary   proceedings   had <\/p>\n
been dropped   by the State of U.P. against several officials who had <\/p>\n
been   impleaded   as   respondents   in   this   case.   The   Commission <\/p>\n
submitted   the   report   dated   24.12.2005,     and   after   considering   the <\/p>\n
same,  this Court   vide order dated 8.12.2008 closed the proceedings <\/p>\n
against Shri Bijendra Sahay, respondent no.8.  One Shri S.C. Tripathi <\/p>\n
also stood exonerated in earlier proceedings.<\/p>\n
               In   view   of   the   order   passed   by   this   Court,   the   CBI <\/p>\n
conducted   the   enquiry   against   Mrs.   Neera   Yadav,   IAS,   respondent <\/p>\n
no.7 and filed  a charge sheet  against her.   She was put on trial  and <\/p>\n
proceeded with in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.     Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual matrix, this Court has to <\/p>\n
examine   as   to   whether   any   action   is   warranted   against   Shri   Ravi <\/p>\n
Mathur, IAS, respondent no.4 and if so, whether it is permissible  to <\/p>\n
initiate the disciplinary proceedings against him as he reached the age <\/p>\n
of   superannuation   and   has   retired   and   the   alleged   misconduct   had <\/p>\n
been committed by him in 1993-94, and as to whether the misconduct <\/p>\n
is of such a grave nature that it warrants the criminal prosecution and <\/p>\n
                                                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
if   so,   what   should   be   the   agency   which   may   be   entrusted   with   the <\/p>\n
investigation and prosecution.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
10.     Shri   K.T.S.   Tulsi,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for <\/p>\n
respondent no.7 submitted that on similar allegations, this Court had <\/p>\n
directed   CBI   to   initiate   criminal   proceedings   against   his   client   and <\/p>\n
criminal   prosecution   has   been   launched   and   ended   in   logical <\/p>\n
conclusion,   thus,   there   could   be   no   justification   not   to   initiate   the <\/p>\n
similar proceedings against Shri Ravi Mathur, IAS, respondent no.4. <\/p>\n
Not   initiating   the   proceedings   on   the   similar   or   more   grave   charges <\/p>\n
would   amount   to   treating   the   said   respondent   no.7   with   hostile <\/p>\n
discrimination.   The   disciplinary   proceedings   cannot   be   initiated <\/p>\n
against   him   in   view   of   delay   and   latches   as   the   statutory   rules <\/p>\n
applicable do not permit such a course at such a belated stage.   The <\/p>\n
criminal   prosecution   can   easily   be   launched.   The   matter   requires <\/p>\n
investigation as to whether the said respondent no.4 had committed an <\/p>\n
offence   under   the   provisions   of  Prevention   of  Corruption   Act,   1988 <\/p>\n
(hereinafter called the Act 1988).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.     Dr.   Rajeev   Dhavan,   learned   senior   counsel\/Amicus   Curiae <\/p>\n
would   submit   that   the   gravity   of   allegations   made   against   the   said <\/p>\n
                                                                                      8<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent no.4 is of such a high magnitude that it warrants the same <\/p>\n
treatment as given to Mrs. Neera Yadav, IAS, respondent no.7.   Dr. <\/p>\n
Dhavan has taken us through all the proceedings including the reports <\/p>\n
of   the   Chairman,   Board   of   Revenue   and   K.T.   Thomas   Commission <\/p>\n
and submitted that it is a fit case directing the CBI to conduct enquiry <\/p>\n
against the respondent no.4. However, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan has raised <\/p>\n
serious objection in respect of intervention of the respondent no. 7 and <\/p>\n
opportunity  of hearing accorded to Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned  senior <\/p>\n
counsel on her behalf  that in a case of this nature the respondent no.7 <\/p>\n
had no locus standi and right to raise any grievance whatsoever.<\/p>\n
12.    Shri   Rakesh   Dwivedi,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   for <\/p>\n
respondent no.4, has vehemently opposed the initiation of disciplinary <\/p>\n
proceedings or criminal prosecution on the ground that the  Authority <\/p>\n
did not suffer any financial loss. There is nothing on record to show <\/p>\n
that the said respondent indulged in corruption, thus, the provisions of <\/p>\n
the Act 1988 were attracted.   The said respondent had acted in good <\/p>\n
faith.     The   disciplinary   proceedings   cannot   be   initiated,   being   time <\/p>\n
barred.  All the allegations had been made against the said respondent <\/p>\n
no.4 at the behest of respondent no.7, thus, suffers from mala fide and <\/p>\n
bias.   The said respondent had paid the transfer charges only once to <\/p>\n
                                                                                  9<\/span><\/p>\n
the   tune   of   Rs.1.80   lacs.   The   second   conversion   had   subsequently <\/p>\n
been cancelled  by  the respondent no.7 herself.  Due to   pendency  of <\/p>\n
this case, the said respondent could not get the physical possession of <\/p>\n
any   of   the   plots.     The   change   of   user   of   the   land   in   Sector   32   was <\/p>\n
made  in good faith.   More so, such a change was cancelled  and the <\/p>\n
green area was restored by the respondent no.7 herself.   The contract <\/p>\n
given   by   the   respondent   no.4   to   certain   contractors   had   been   at   the <\/p>\n
rate on which they had been working earlier.  Thus, the Authority did <\/p>\n
not suffer any loss whatsoever.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.     Before   we  proceed  with  the  case  on  merits,  we  would  like  to <\/p>\n
make it clear that Mrs. Neera Yadav, IAS, respondent no.7, had been <\/p>\n
given an opportunity by this Court vide order dated 20.1.1998  to file <\/p>\n
her affidavit disclosing the delinquency committed by other officers. <\/p>\n
In pursuance of the said order, she submitted her affidavit.  Therefore, <\/p>\n
it is not possible for us at such a belated stage to deny her the right of <\/p>\n
hearing and ignore the submissions made by her counsel, Shri K.T.S. <\/p>\n
Tulsi. (vide:  V.S. Achuthanandan v. R. Balakrishna Pillai & Ors.,<\/a> <\/p>\n
(2011) 3 SCC 317).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.     We   have   considered   the   rival   submissions   made   by   learned <\/p>\n
counsel for the parties and perused the record.<\/p>\n
                                                                                            1<\/span><\/p>\n
        15.     The services of Shri Ravi Mathur, IAS, respondent no.4 <\/p>\n
stood     governed   by   All   India   Services   (Death-cum-Retirement <\/p>\n
Benefits)   Rules,   1958.     Rule   6(b),   thereof,   provides   that   in  case   the <\/p>\n
delinquent had already retired, the proceedings shall not be instituted <\/p>\n
against him without the sanction of the Central Government and shall <\/p>\n
be in respect of an event which took place  not more than four years <\/p>\n
before the institution of such proceedings.  Thus, it is evident that law <\/p>\n
does   not   permit   holding   disciplinary   proceedings   against   Shri   Ravi <\/p>\n
Mathur,   IAS,   respondent   no.4   at   this   belated   stage   and   this   view <\/p>\n
stands fortified by the judgments of this Court in B.J. Shelat v. State <\/p>\n
of Gujarat & Ors., AIR<\/a> 1978 SC 1109; State Bank of India v. A.N. <\/p>\n
Gupta & Ors.,<\/a> (1997) 8 SCC 60;  State of U.P. & Ors. v. Harihar <\/p>\n
Bholenath,<\/a> (2006) 13 SCC 460; UCO Bank & Anr. v. Rajinder Lal <\/p>\n
Capoor,  AIR<\/a> 2007 SC 2129;  Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab <\/p>\n
National Bank & Anr.,<\/a> (2007) 9 SCC 15; and UCO Bank & Anr. v. <\/p>\n
Rajinder Lal Capoor, AIR<\/a> 2008 SC 1831.\n<\/p>\n
16      So far as the initiation of criminal proceedings is concerned it is <\/p>\n
governed   by   the   provisions   of   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973 <\/p>\n
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   Cr.P.C.).   Section   468   thereof   puts   an <\/p>\n
embargo on the court to take cognizance of an offence after expiry of <\/p>\n
                                                                                      1<\/span><\/p>\n
limitation   provided   therein.     However,   there   is   no   limitation <\/p>\n
prescribed   for   an   offence   punishable   with   more   than   3   years <\/p>\n
imprisonment.     Section   469   declares   as   to   when   the   period   of <\/p>\n
limitation   would   start.     Sections   470-471   provide   for   exclusion   of <\/p>\n
period of limitation in certain cases.  Section 473 enables the court to <\/p>\n
condone the delay provided the court is satisfied with the explanation <\/p>\n
furnished by the prosecution or where the interest of justice demands <\/p>\n
extension of  the period of limitation.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                   This Court in   Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, <\/p>\n
AIR<\/a> 2007 SC 2762, dealt with the issue and observed as under:<\/p>\n
           “14. The  general  rule of criminal justice  is that a <\/p>\n
           crime never dies. The principle is reflected in the <\/p>\n
           well-known   maxim  nullum   tempus   aut   locus  <\/p>\n
           occurrit regi  (lapse of time is no bar to Crown in <\/p>\n
           proceeding against offenders)……. It is settled law <\/p>\n
           that   a   criminal   offence   is   considered   as   a   wrong <\/p>\n
           against the State and the Society even though it has <\/p>\n
           been   committed   against   an   individual.   Normally, <\/p>\n
           in serious offences, prosecution is launched by the <\/p>\n
           State  and  a  Court of Law  has   no power to  throw <\/p>\n
           away   prosecution   solely   on   the   ground   of   delay. <\/p>\n
           Mere delay in approaching a Court of Law would <\/p>\n
           not   by   itself   afford   a   ground   for   dismissing   the <\/p>\n
           case   though   it  may   be  a   relevant   circumstance   in <\/p>\n
           reaching a final verdict.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
17.    The aforesaid judgment was followed by this Court in  Sajjan <\/p>\n
Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation,<\/a> (2010) 9 SCC 368.<\/p>\n
                                                                                1<\/span><\/p>\n
18.     Thus, it is evident that question of delay in launching criminal <\/p>\n
prosecution may be a circumstance to be taken into consideration in <\/p>\n
arriving   at   a   final   decision,   but   it   cannot   itself   be   a   ground   for <\/p>\n
dismissing the complaint.   More so, the issue of limitation has to be <\/p>\n
examined in the light of the gravity of the charge. <\/p>\n
19.     Thus,   we   have   to   examine   as   to   whether   the   said   respondent <\/p>\n
could   be   tried   for   commission   of   an   offence,   if   any,   under   the <\/p>\n
provisions of the Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         Section 13 thereof, reads:\n<\/p>\n
\n            “Criminal  misconduct by a public servant.- (1) <\/p>\n
            A public servant is said to commit  the offence of <\/p>\n
            criminal misconduct,-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            (b)     ………\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            (c)      if   he   dishonestly   or   fraudulently <\/p>\n
                     misappropriates   or   otherwise   converts   for <\/p>\n
                     his own use any property entrusted to him <\/p>\n
                     or under his control as a public servant or <\/p>\n
                     allows any other person to do so; or<\/p>\n
            (d)      if he, –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            (i)     by   corrupt   or   illegal   means,   obtains   for <\/p>\n
                    himself or for any other person any valuable <\/p>\n
                    thing or pecuniary advantage; or<\/p>\n
            (ii)    by   abusing   his   position   as   a   public <\/p>\n
                    servant,   obtains   for   himself   or   for   any <\/p>\n
                                                                                       1<\/span><\/p>\n
                     other   person   any   valuable   thing   or <\/p>\n
                     pecuniary advantage; or<\/p>\n
            (iii)    while   holding   office   as   a   public   servant, <\/p>\n
                     obtains for any person  any  valuable thing <\/p>\n
                     or  pecuniary   advantage   without   any <\/p>\n
                     public interest.”         (Emphasis added)  <\/p>\n
20.      Shri   Ravi   Mathur,   IAS,   respondent   no.4   had   been   the   CEO, <\/p>\n
NOIDA   from   July   1993   to   9.1.1994   and   the   CEO,   Greater   NOIDA <\/p>\n
from   10.1.1994   to   26.1.1995.     Altogether,   there   had   been   14 <\/p>\n
allegations  against  him  which  the  Chairman, Board   of Revenue  had <\/p>\n
examined. The findings recorded by the Chairman, Board of Revenue <\/p>\n
were also placed before Justice K.T. Thomas Commission.  However, <\/p>\n
at the time of arguments, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Amicus Curiae <\/p>\n
has   submitted   that   there   are   three   major   allegations   in   respect   of <\/p>\n
which   this   Court   must   direct   the   CBI   enquiry.     He   has   drawn   our <\/p>\n
attention to the findings recorded by the Chairman, Board of Revenue <\/p>\n
on allegation nos. (iv), (ix) and (xiii) which are as under :<\/p>\n
  Allegation No. (iv) :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            Shri Ravi Mathur allotted contracts worth Rs.10 crores <\/p>\n
  to   different   contractors   on   selection   basis   without   inviting <\/p>\n
  tenders.\n<\/p>\n
\n  Findings:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  (i)      The  award of  the  contract   to  M\/s. Anil  Kumar  & Co., <\/p>\n
  was   approved   by   the   CEO.     The   argument   that   the   usual <\/p>\n
                                                                                   1<\/span><\/p>\n
process   was   not   followed   on   account   of   urgency   is   not <\/p>\n
acceptable. (para 1.4.3.2)<\/p>\n
(ii)     The award of the contract to M\/s. Techno Construction <\/p>\n
Co. was a pre-detemined decision. No satisfactory explanation <\/p>\n
why this company only was selected. (para 1.4.3.3.)<\/p>\n
(iii)    The notes in the file for the award of the contract to M\/s. <\/p>\n
Anil Kumar & Co. in Sector Gamma were tailor made and the <\/p>\n
urgency projected cannot be accepted. (para 1.4.3.4)<\/p>\n
(iv)     There was no urgency warranting the award of contract <\/p>\n
to Mr. J.K. Jain, which was approved by the CEO also. (para <\/p>\n
1.4.3.5)<\/p>\n
(v)      The proposal to award work to M\/s. Fair Deal Engineers <\/p>\n
was faulty and the urgency clause was not well defined.   The <\/p>\n
note was approved by the CEO. (para 1.4.3.6)<\/p>\n
(vi)     The argument of urgency advanced is not acceptable in <\/p>\n
some   cases   (para   1.4.4).     At   least   in   one   case   there   was   not <\/p>\n
even a necessity to award the work. (para 1.4.4)<\/p>\n
(vii)    No   cogent   regions   were   given   in   the   note   file   for <\/p>\n
selecting a particular contractor. Some of the notes appear to <\/p>\n
be   tailor   made.   The   works   were   got   done   by   the <\/p>\n
Manager\/Senior   Manager   through   hand   picked   contractors <\/p>\n
without   inviting   tenders   and   without   following   financial <\/p>\n
norms. (para 1.4.4.)<\/p>\n
Allegation No. (ix):\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
         Shri   Ravi   Mathur   caused   financial   loss   to   NOIDA   by <\/p>\n
not paying conversion charges with respect to the plot allotted <\/p>\n
to  him.    He   initially   asked   for   conversion   from  Sector   35  to <\/p>\n
Sector 27 but since he did not deposit the required amount the <\/p>\n
offer of conversion was withdrawn.   Subsequently he applied <\/p>\n
for conversion from Sector 35 to Sector 44.\n<\/p>\n
Findings:\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                        1<\/span><\/p>\n
            The only conversion which took place was from Sector <\/p>\n
35 to Sector 44 for which conversion charges were deposited. <\/p>\n
It is a matter under the exclusive competence  of the Authority <\/p>\n
and its Chief Executive as to whether it was to be treated  as <\/p>\n
two conversions or one conversion only.  It appears that it was <\/p>\n
a subtle and  fine way  to help  a fellow officer.   In any  event <\/p>\n
Smt.   Neera   Yadav   had   approved   the   second   application   on <\/p>\n
26.10.1994.   The file  regarding the allotment and conversion <\/p>\n
of plot of Shri Ravi Mathur is not traceable in NOIDA but that <\/p>\n
is for the Authority to take appropriate action. (para 1.9.5)<\/p>\n
Allegation No. (xiii):\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           A 13 hectare City Park situated near Sectors 24, 33 and <\/p>\n
35 in NOIDA was destroyed and a new residential Sector 32 in <\/p>\n
violation of the Master Plan was carved out comprising of 200 <\/p>\n
plots.\n<\/p>\n
\nFindings:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(i)        The   procedure   as   prescribed   in   the   1991   Regulations <\/p>\n
was not followed while making the change of land use. (para <\/p>\n
1.13.7)<\/p>\n
(ii)       The decision of land use change was based on logic but <\/p>\n
the proposal should have been put up before the Board.   The <\/p>\n
then   Chief   Architect   Planner   did   not   point   out   this   legal <\/p>\n
requirement   and   failed   in   his   primary   duty   in   advising   the <\/p>\n
ACEO and CCEO. (para 1.13.7)<\/p>\n
(iii)      There was no urgency for the development work in this <\/p>\n
sector.     The   development   work   was   started   and   awarded <\/p>\n
without following the tender procedure in flagrant violation of <\/p>\n
established   procedure   for   which   the   then   Chief   Project <\/p>\n
Engineer   and   the   then   General   Manager   (F)   are   responsible. <\/p>\n
(para 1.13.7)<\/p>\n
(iv)       The Board has taken its duties casually and there was no <\/p>\n
serious effort to check, analyse and advise. (para 1.13.7)<\/p>\n
                                                                                 1<\/span><\/p>\n
21.     So far as these allegations are concerned, it is evident from the <\/p>\n
record   that M\/s Anil Kumar & Co.   had been allotted originally the <\/p>\n
work on the basis of tender for Rs. 2.75 crores in Sector `Gamma’ in <\/p>\n
Greater NOIDA, in connection with the construction of water drains. <\/p>\n
However,   they   had   been   awarded   additional   work   by   Shri   Ravi <\/p>\n
Mathur, IAS, respondent no. 4, worth Rs.3.75 crores on a “deviation <\/p>\n
basis”. In fact, awarding such work cannot be termed as an `addition’ <\/p>\n
or `additional work’ because the work is worth Rs.1 crore more than <\/p>\n
the amount of original contract. In such a fact-situation, even if there <\/p>\n
had   been   no   financial   loss   to   the   Greater   NOIDA,   indisputably,   the <\/p>\n
additional   work   for   such   a   huge   amount   had   been   awarded   without <\/p>\n
following the procedure prescribed in law. More so, there is nothing <\/p>\n
on record to show as to whether the said contractor M\/s Anil Kumar <\/p>\n
&   Co.   was   eligible   to   carry   out     the   contract   worth   Rs.6.50   crores. <\/p>\n
Awarding the contract under the garb of so-called extension, amounts <\/p>\n
to   doing   something   indirectly   which   may   not   be   permissible   to   do <\/p>\n
directly. Admittedly, such a course of action is not permissible in law. <\/p>\n
22.     It is a settled proposition of law that whatever is prohibited by <\/p>\n
law   to   be   done,   cannot   legally   be   affected   by   an   indirect   and <\/p>\n
circuitous contrivance on the principle of “quando aliquid prohibetur,  <\/p>\n
                                                                                       1<\/span><\/p>\n
prohibetur   at   omne   per   quod   devenitur   ad   illud”,   which   means” <\/p>\n
“whenever a thing is prohibited, it is prohibited whether done directly <\/p>\n
or indirectly”. (See: Swantraj & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR<\/a> <\/p>\n
1974   SC   517;  Commissioner   of   Central   Excise,   Pondicherry   v. <\/p>\n
ACER India Ltd.,<\/a> (2004) 8 SCC 173; and Sant Lal Gupta & Ors. v. <\/p>\n
Modern   Co-operative   Group   Housing   Society   Ltd.   &   Ors.,   JT<\/a> <\/p>\n
(2010) 11 SC 273).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
23.     In  Jagir Singh  v.  Ranbir  Singh  & Anr.,  AIR<\/a>  1979  SC  381, <\/p>\n
this Court has observed that an authority cannot be permitted to evade <\/p>\n
a   law   by   “shift   or   contrivance.”   While   deciding   the   said   case,   the <\/p>\n
Court placed reliance on the judgment in Fox v.  Bishop of Chester, <\/p>\n
(1824) 2 B &C 635, wherein it has been observed as under:-<\/p>\n
             “To carry out effectually the object of a statute, it  <\/p>\n
         must be construed as to defeat all attempts to do, or  <\/p>\n
         avoid doing in an indirect or circuitous manner that  <\/p>\n
         which it has prohibited or enjoined.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
24.     The second work had been allotted to M\/s Techno Construction <\/p>\n
Co.   worth   Rs.1.00   crore   without   inviting   fresh   tenders   etc.,   on   the <\/p>\n
ground   that   earlier   a   contract   for   execution   of   similar   work   i.e. <\/p>\n
construction of road had been awarded to it. In view of the fact that <\/p>\n
there was no urgency, such a contract should not have been awarded. <\/p>\n
                                                                                     1<\/span><\/p>\n
Undoubtedly,     the   respondent   no.4     is   guilty   of   proceeding   in   haste <\/p>\n
and that amounts to arbitrariness.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
25.      While dealing with the issue of haste, this Court in  the case of <\/p>\n
Bahadursinh   Lakhubhai   Gohil   v.   Jagdishbhai   M.   Kamalia   & <\/p>\n
Ors.,<\/a>  (2004)  2  SCC  65,  referred   to  the  case   of  Dr.  S.P.  Kapoor  v. <\/p>\n
State   of   Himachal   Pradesh   &   Ors.,   AIR<\/a>   1981   SC   2181   and   held <\/p>\n
that:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “…..when a thing is done in a post-haste manner,  <\/p>\n
          mala fide would be presumed.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
26.      In Zenit Mataplast Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra <\/p>\n
& Ors.,<\/a> (2009) 10 SCC 388, this Court  held :\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
             “Anything done in undue haste can also be termed  <\/p>\n
          as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law”.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
27.      Thus,  in  case  an  authority  proceeds   in undue  haste,  the  Court <\/p>\n
may draw an adverse inference from such conduct.  It further creates <\/p>\n
a doubt that if there was no sufficient reason of urgency, what was the <\/p>\n
occasion   for   the   respondent   no.4   to   proceed   in   such   haste   and   why <\/p>\n
fresh tenders  had not been invited.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
28.      It   is   evident   from   the   record   that   the   respondent   no.4   had <\/p>\n
originally   been   allotted   plot   no.118,   Sector-35   measuring   360   sq. <\/p>\n
                                                                                    1<\/span><\/p>\n
meters   which   was   converted   to   plot   no.G-25,   Sector-27   measuring <\/p>\n
392 sq. meters.   However, as the respondent no.4 did not deposit the <\/p>\n
required charges the said order of conversion stood withdrawn.     By <\/p>\n
subsequent conversion, respondent no.4 got plot no.A-15 in Sector-44. <\/p>\n
Thus, two conversions had been made on   different dates.   However, <\/p>\n
he paid the transfer charges only once to the tune of Rs.1.80 lacs.  It is <\/p>\n
alleged that by first conversion, the respondent no.4 not only got the <\/p>\n
plot   in   a   better   location,   but   also   a   plot   of   bigger   size.   Second <\/p>\n
allotment was further, as alleged, in a far better geographical position. <\/p>\n
29.     There is no provision under the Act 1976 or Regulation 1991 <\/p>\n
for   conversion.     It   is   rather   governed   by   Office   Order   No.4070\/ <\/p>\n
NOIDA\/DCEO\/92 dated 3.7.1992.  The relevant part thereof basically <\/p>\n
provides   that   conversion   was  permissible   only   in   case   of   residential <\/p>\n
plots.  Relevant part thereof reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            “3. In case of residential plots, only cancelled and <\/p>\n
            surrendered   properties   shall   be   offered   for <\/p>\n
            conversion………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    The details of availability of properties shall <\/p>\n
            be   available   in   the   office   of  Dy.   Chief   Executive <\/p>\n
            Officer.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    xx      xx      xx\n\n\n                    xx      xx      xx\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
            6.   All expenses pertaining  to conversion such  as <\/p>\n
            conversion   charges,   locational   benefit   charges, <\/p>\n
                                                                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
           stamp duty, registration charges etc. shall be borne <\/p>\n
           by the allottee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                   xx       xx     xx<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           8.  Conversion shall not be allowed more than once <\/p>\n
           to any allottee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                   xx       xx     xx<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           11.     Chairman-cum-Chief   Executive   Officer   may <\/p>\n
           relax   the   above   guidelines   in   exceptional <\/p>\n
           circumstances.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
30.    The aforesaid Office Order dated 3.7.1992 stood modified vide <\/p>\n
order   dated   27.9.1993   (when   the   respondent   no.4   was   the   CEO, <\/p>\n
NOIDA)   to   the   effect   that   a   large   number   of   vacant   plots   were <\/p>\n
available in old developed sectors.  The same may be included in the <\/p>\n
plots availability list.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
31.    That   the   list   of   available   plots   had   been   expanded   during   the <\/p>\n
period when the respondent no.4 was CEO, NOIDA   and unallotted <\/p>\n
plots of various sectors including Sector 27 were also included in that <\/p>\n
list in which the respondent no.4 himself got the first conversion.  It is <\/p>\n
a matter of investigation as to whether the Order dated 3.7.1992 was <\/p>\n
modified vide Order dated 27.9.1993 with ulterior purpose.<\/p>\n
32.    Section   12  of the  Act     1976  makes  the  provisions   of Chapter <\/p>\n
VII and Sections 30, 32, 40 to 47, 49, 50, 51, 53 and 58   of the U.P. <\/p>\n
                                                                                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
Urban Planning and Development Act 1973  (hereinafter referred to as <\/p>\n
the `Act 1973′) mutatis mutandis   applicable to the Act 1976. Section <\/p>\n
17 of the Act 1976 declares that the Act 1976 would have an over-<\/p>\n
riding effect over the provisions of  the Act 1973. Section 18 confers <\/p>\n
the   power   on   the   State   Government   to   make   rules   by   issuing   a <\/p>\n
Notification for carrying out the purposes of the Act 1976. Section 19 <\/p>\n
of the Act 1976 provides for the framing of regulations by the NOIDA <\/p>\n
in respect of holding of meetings; defining the powers and duties of <\/p>\n
the CEO; and management of properties of the Authority etc.  In view <\/p>\n
thereof, the New Okhla Industrial Development Area (Preparation and <\/p>\n
Finalisation   of   Plan)   Regulations   1991   (hereinafter   called   as <\/p>\n
`Regulations 1991′)   had been framed with the prior approval of the <\/p>\n
State Government as required under Section 19 of the Act 1976 and, <\/p>\n
therefore,   have   statutory   force.   By   virtue   of   the   provisions   of   sub-<\/p>\n
section 2(b) of Section 6 of the Act 1976, it is a statutory requirement <\/p>\n
that   in   the   plan   to   be   prepared   by   the   NOIDA,     it   must   necessarily <\/p>\n
provide as to for what particular purpose any area\/site is to be used, <\/p>\n
namely,   industrial,   commercial   or   residential.   The   Authority   is <\/p>\n
competent   under   sub-section   2(c)   of   Section   6,   to   regulate   the <\/p>\n
construction   etc.   having   regard   to   the   nature   for   which   the   site   has <\/p>\n
been earmarked. Section 8 of   the Act 1976 restrains   the use of any <\/p>\n
                                                                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
site for the purpose other than for which it is earmarked in the Master <\/p>\n
Plan.   Section   9   prohibits   the   use   of   any   area   or   erection   of   any <\/p>\n
building in contravention of Regulations 1991. Section 14 of the Act <\/p>\n
1976 clearly provides for cancellation of allotment and resumption\/re-<\/p>\n
entry, where the allotment had been made in contravention of the rules <\/p>\n
and regulations.   In case the Authority wants to change the user of the <\/p>\n
land, condition precedent remains to amend the Master Plan. <\/p>\n
33.     There   is   nothing   on   record   to   show   that   any   amendment   had <\/p>\n
ever been made either in the Master Plan or in the Regulations 1991 <\/p>\n
before   the   change   of   user   of   land,   when   a   13   hectare   City   Park <\/p>\n
situated   near   Sectors   24,   33   and   35   was   abolished   and   a   new <\/p>\n
residential Sector 32 was carved out comprising 200 plots. Even if the <\/p>\n
said change made by Shri Ravi Mathur, IAS, respondent no.4   stood <\/p>\n
nullified, subsequently by Smt. Neera Yadav, respondent no.7,  it does <\/p>\n
not   exonerate   him   from   committing   an   illegality.     It   is   a   matter   of <\/p>\n
investigation as to what was the motive for which such a change had <\/p>\n
been made by Shri Ravi Mathur, IAS, respondent no.4, unauthorisedly <\/p>\n
and   illegally.   Admittedly   he   was   not   competent   to   do   so   without <\/p>\n
seeking the amendments as mentioned hereinabove.                            <\/p>\n
                                                                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
34.     The State or the public authority which holds the property for <\/p>\n
the  public   or   which   has   been   assigned  the   duty   of  grant   of  largesse <\/p>\n
etc., acts as a trustee and, therefore, has to act fairly and reasonably. <\/p>\n
Every holder of a public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of <\/p>\n
the   State   or   public   body   is   ultimately   accountable   to   the   people   in <\/p>\n
whom the sovereignty vests. As such, all powers so vested in him are <\/p>\n
meant   to   be   exercised   for   public   good   and   promoting   the   public <\/p>\n
interest.   Every   holder   of   a   public   office   is   a   trustee.     State   actions <\/p>\n
required to be non-arbitrary and justified on the touchstone of Article <\/p>\n
14 of the Constitution. Action of the State or its instrumentality must <\/p>\n
be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason <\/p>\n
and   relevance.  Functioning   of   a   “democratic   form   of   Government <\/p>\n
demands   equality   and   absence   of   arbitrariness   and   discrimination”. <\/p>\n
The rule of law prohibits arbitrary action and commands the authority <\/p>\n
concerned to act in accordance with law. Every action of the State or <\/p>\n
its   instrumentalities   should   neither   be   suggestive   of   discrimination, <\/p>\n
nor   even   apparently   give   an   impression   of   bias,   favouritism   and <\/p>\n
nepotism. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any <\/p>\n
rule,   it   is   unpredictable   and   such   a   decision   is   antithesis   to   the <\/p>\n
decision  taken  in accordance  with  the rule  of law.  The  Public   Trust <\/p>\n
Doctrine is a part of the law of the land. The doctrine has grown from <\/p>\n
                                                                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
Article 21 of the Constitution. In essence, the action\/order of the State <\/p>\n
or State instrumentality would stand vitiated if it lacks bona fides, as it <\/p>\n
would   only   be   a   case   of   colourable   exercise   of   power.   The   Rule   of <\/p>\n
Law is the foundation of a democratic society.   (Vide:  M\/s. Erusian <\/p>\n
Equipment   &   Chemicals   Ltd.   v.     State   of   West   Bengal   &   Anr., <\/p>\n
AIR<\/a> 1975 SC 266;  Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International <\/p>\n
Airport Authority of India & Ors., AIR<\/a> 1979 SC 1628;  Haji T.M. <\/p>\n
Hassan   Rawther   v.   Kerala   Financial   Corporation,  AIR<\/a>   1988   SC <\/p>\n
157; Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors., <\/p>\n
AIR 1991 SC 537; and  M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v.   Radhey Shyam <\/p>\n
Sahu & Ors., AIR<\/a> 1999 SC 2468).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
35.     Power   vested   by   the   State   in   a   Public   Authority   should   be <\/p>\n
viewed as a trust coupled with duty to be exercised  in larger public <\/p>\n
and   social   interest.   Power   is   to   be   exercised   strictly   adhering   to   the <\/p>\n
statutory   provisions   and   fact-situation   of   a   case.   “Public   Authorities <\/p>\n
cannot   play   fast   and   loose   with   the   powers   vested   in   them”.   A <\/p>\n
decision   taken   in   arbitrary   manner   contradicts   the   principle   of <\/p>\n
legitimate   expectation.   An   Authority   is   under   a   legal   obligation   to <\/p>\n
exercise   the   power   reasonably   and   in   good   faith   to   effectuate   the <\/p>\n
purpose   for   which   power   stood   conferred.   In   this   context,   “in   good <\/p>\n
                                                                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
faith” means “for legitimate reasons”. It must be exercised  bona fide <\/p>\n
for the purpose and for none other.  (Vide:  Commissioner of Police, <\/p>\n
Bombay   v.   Gordhandas   Bhanji,  AIR<\/a>   1952   SC   16;  Sirsi <\/p>\n
Municipality v. Ceceila Kom Francis Tellis, AIR<\/a> 1973 SC 855; The <\/p>\n
State   of   Punjab   &   Anr.   v.   Gurdial   Singh   &   Ors.,  AIR<\/a>   1980   SC <\/p>\n
319; The Collector (Distt. Magistrate) Allahabad & Anr. v. Raja <\/p>\n
Ram Jaiswal, AIR<\/a> 1985 SC 1622; Delhi Administration (Now NCT <\/p>\n
of   Delhi)   v.   Manohar   Lal,<\/a>  (2002)   7   SCC   222;   and  N.D.   Jayal   & <\/p>\n
Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR<\/a> 2004 SC 867).\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
36.     In   view   of   the   above,   we   are   of   the   considered   opinion   that <\/p>\n
these   allegations   being   of   a   very   serious   nature   and   as   alleged,   the <\/p>\n
respondent   no.4   had   passed   orders   in   colourable   exercise   of   power <\/p>\n
favouring himself and certain contractors, require investigation. Thus, <\/p>\n
in view of the above, we direct the CBI to have preliminary enquiry <\/p>\n
and   in   case   the   allegations   are   found   having   some   substance <\/p>\n
warranting further proceeding with criminal prosecution, may proceed <\/p>\n
in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                It may be pertinent to mention that any observation made <\/p>\n
herein against respondent no.4 would be treated  necessary to decide <\/p>\n
the present controversy. The CBI shall investigate the matter without <\/p>\n
                                                                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
being influenced by any observation made  in this judgment.  <\/p>\n
      The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. <\/p>\n
               Before   parting   with   the   case,   we   would   like   to   express <\/p>\n
our gratitude and record appreciation  to Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned <\/p>\n
senior counsel for rendering commendable assistance to the Court as <\/p>\n
Amicus Curiae.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                       …………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                (G.S. SINGHVI)<\/p>\n
                                                ………………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)<\/p>\n
 New Delhi,<\/p>\n
 May 9,  2011<\/p>\n
                                                                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
                                                                         REPORTABLE<\/p>\n
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<\/p>\n
                          CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION<\/p>\n
                     WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 529 OF 1998<\/p>\n
           Naresh Pratap Singh                                              ..Petitioner <\/p>\n
                                                        Versus<\/p>\n
                  State of U.P.                                                   ..Respondent<\/p>\n
                                             J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
      Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                       In view of our judgment delivered today in Writ Petition <\/p>\n
      (C)   No.   150   of   1997   (NOIDA   Entrepreneurs   Association   v. <\/p>\n
      NOIDA   &   Ors.),<\/a>   no   separate   order   is   required   in   this   writ   petition <\/p>\n
      which is accordingly disposed of.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        ……………………..J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        (G.S. SINGHVI)<\/p>\n
                                                                        …………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                          (Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)<\/p>\n
      New Delhi,<\/p>\n
      May 9, 2011<\/p>\n
                                                                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
2<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Noida Entrepreneurs Assocn vs N O I D A & Ors on 9 May, 2011 Author: . B Chauhan Bench: G.S. Singhvi, B.S. Chauhan Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 150 OF 1997 NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association …..Petitioner Versus NOIDA & Ors. …..Respondents J […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219779","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNoida Entrepreneurs Assocn vs N O I D A & Ors on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Noida Entrepreneurs Assocn vs N O I D A & Ors on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-29T21:23:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Noida Entrepreneurs Assocn vs N O I D A & Ors on 9 May, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T21:23:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011\"},\"wordCount\":5552,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011\",\"name\":\"Noida Entrepreneurs Assocn vs N O I D A & Ors on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T21:23:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Noida Entrepreneurs Assocn vs N O I D A & Ors on 9 May, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Noida Entrepreneurs Assocn vs N O I D A & Ors on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Noida Entrepreneurs Assocn vs N O I D A & Ors on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-29T21:23:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Noida Entrepreneurs Assocn vs N O I D A & Ors on 9 May, 2011","datePublished":"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T21:23:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011"},"wordCount":5552,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011","name":"Noida Entrepreneurs Assocn vs N O I D A & Ors on 9 May, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-05-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T21:23:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/noida-entrepreneurs-assocn-vs-n-o-i-d-a-ors-on-9-may-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Noida Entrepreneurs Assocn vs N O I D A & Ors on 9 May, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219779","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219779"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219779\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219779"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219779"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219779"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}