^•i^~ mtSSms^ G03SS W JWIS&raBB AT .JAaA^^a. W..^SS^A PEriTIOffiR Brjt RajeBdea Babey, S/0 Shai S»©«Babey, aged aboBt S4 years, r/®B^yendra Nagar* Raipw* distri.et Raipur* M»P* ^ n", Kurr;.- IG!aa? ^&^y ^t» ^.afee <af M«P* Tteough ; Ttae Priaclpal $feci-etary»,BeveBue Beptt, h B 3 A2»1»_S (altltl»P»: ^Bt>].I.®.RelaUsns: ., M«Po i ^ 3. the Caan«aissi<in8r, Baipur MvlsiSR, RaipBr* M«P» 3/^4. fhe Gellecter, Balpur, Bistrlct RaipBr, M»P, ~5 |Cs. the Mazul Officer, Bad.pur» dlstrlet Baipar, t(«P» ^ ^->6. Tbe Ghlef Exeeetive, ©allySanvet Shikher, §, Seuth Avenue Gheubey GeleRy, Raipur, dl.tffcrtet Bgipur, M«P» FEtniW WQBS. ASn^LE g^/^7 TBE GONSTITyn®} tl . ' ~-- ~~- - "•. : .' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No.4552 of 1998 Dr. Rajendra Dubey, S/o. Shri S.D. Dubey, Ralpur. Vs- State of M.P. fhrough the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.). ^ For the Petitioner For Respondents 1 to 5 For Respondent No.6 Shri P. Diwakar, Advocate Dr.N.K. ShiiMa, Addl. Advocate General with Shri Gautham Bhaduri, Govt. Advocate. Shri Vivek Sibbal with Shri B.P. Sharma, Advocate. Order passed, Signed and Dated on 15-03-2002 By order --^- f' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No.4552 of 1998 Dr.Rajendra Dubey -Vs- State ofM.P. & others For the Petitioner: For respondents No. 1 to 5 Por respondent No.6 Shri P. Diwakar, Advocate. Dr.N.K.ShuMa, Addl.A.G.with Shri G.Bhaduri, Qovt. Advocate Shri Vivek Sibbal with Shri B.P.Sharma, Advocate. ORDER (15.03.2002) By this writ petition ffled imder Article 226/227 of the Constitution of todia, petitioner prays for quashiag of the allotment order dated 05.8.1994 (Aiinexure P/1) issued tn favour of respondent no.6 and the tinpugned order of advanGe possession dated 22.8.1994 (Annexure P-2). It is further prayed that respondents 1 to 5 be dlrected to issue aUotment order with '^ (^l^ delivery of possession in respect of plot in dispute, ta favour of the present petitioner. J ( (2) Petitioner submlts that he 1s the Secretaiy of Yi^ Chetna PubUcation, Raipur which is the Unit of Yug Dharma and appUed for aUotment oflaad (Annexure P-3) admeasuruig 417138 sq.ft. situated at Block no.9, plot no. 1 x 1 at Rajbandha Talab, dvU Station, Raipur. It is submltted that fhere was Press Complex categorized by the State Qovenunent and the local Authority and various parts thereofhave been aUotted to different pressmen. It is subnutted fhat on receipt ofthe appUcation ui the ofiice of respoiident no.4/Collector, Raipur, no objection certiflcates were demanded and petitiioner obtained No Objection Certificates dated 9.7.1990 and 16.7.1990 (Annexures P-4 and P- 5) fi-om the conceraed authorities. It is ftirther submitted that while petitioner's application was under pnx^ss, respondent no.6 inade aa application to the then Chief Minister for aUotm.ent of land for press complex vide letter dt.4.8.90 (Annexure P.10). Then the said letter was fonvarded by Chief Mmister's Secretariat. The niatter was thereafter processed. ./ r (3) In para 5.8 of fhe writ petition, it is stated "that the petitioner was absolutely innocent.and ignorant about fhe 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 lawfuUy applied on the basis of his entitlement flowing from the long establlshed publication of Che Yugdharma nespspaper and when no response is flown froin the end of respondent, Che present petitioner started approacbing respondents 1 to 5 independently demanding aU the reasons for delay in the process of aUotnaent 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 fhat hostile discrimination has been adopted and the petitioner has been kept in darkness and ttiat the allotment bas been made Ulegally and contrary to law. (4) Dr.N.K. Shukla, Addl. Advocate Qeneral for the State submlts that so far as allegations made agaiast the then Chlef Minlster are concemed, that Chlef Minlster has not been impleaded as party respondent aad as such, in the absence ofhe 4 being jouied as party respondent, the all^ations made agauist him do not requu-e any adjudication. Even othenvise what has been aUeged is that the office of the then Chief Minister's Secretariat forwarded the petitioner's letter. Thereafter respondent no.6 inade an application. Shri ShuMa subinlts that it has become a comiaon practice that the letters are addressed to Chlef MiEdster and other dignltaries, which is not at all healfhy. However, once such letters are received, they are requtred to be dealt with by the Secretariat. It 1s for the respective authorities to take appropriate steps. T-,. (5) Dr. N.K. Shukla,. Leamed Additional Advocate General further subinits that the main question 1s ofdelay, the aUotinent has been made on 5.08.1994 and the petitioner submitted hls letter dated 26.02.1997 and thls 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 fi-om delay and laches. (6) Dr. Shulda, further submits that acconling to the petltioner's own showing the land has stnce been allotted construction is going on, and now when rights have accrued in favour of other aUottees, civil suit is appropriate reinedy for petitioner in vlew of the disputed questions of fact. He further subnuts that fhis petition has been filed by the petitioner in his individual capadty, but not on behatfofYi^ Chetna Prakashan, the petitioner wants the land for his individual piirpose rather thaa as owner of the Press, therefore, no cause of action does arise in this petition. (7) Dr. Shiikla, leamed Addl. Govt. Advocate further submits that respondente 1 to 5 have filed retum in which it has been stated that PoUcy 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 subinits that total land available aiid earmarked is 834276 sq.ft. whereas petitioner has applled for 417138 sq.ft. which is more than half of the total land avaUable. (8) DT. Shulda, Counsel for respondents 1 to 5 further submits fhat whUe processir^;,the c^ae ot the petitioner, he was asked to submlt registration certificate of his establlshment and the petitioner was also asked to fiimish the details as to the quantum of bank balance of the petitioner vide order sheet i.0,^\ dated 14.11.1990 (Annexure R-2), but he dld not give any such infonnation. It is also subniitted that he did not uidicate whether the institution Yug Chetna Prakashan was registered anywhere aad in absence of such mformation the case being incoinplete was retumed by the Govemment vide letter dated 20.10.1995 (Annexure R 4). The respondents submlt that the petitioner has not disclosed whether fhe Yug Chetaa Prakashan is a registered institution and as the petition fiiled in individual capacity it seems that the petitioner wants the land in his individiial capacity rafher than as owner ofthe Press. The respondents have also filed additional retum in which it has been stated that in view ofMemo dated 30.06.1991 (Aiinexure R 5) it was made clear that no land exgeedlag 43360 sq.fts could be allotted to any Press. It is subinitted that thereafter, thc petitioner preferred appllcation for allotment of land, a case was reglstered by the Nazul OfBcer and the proeeedings were going on and fi'om the order sheets vide annexure R-6 it is clear that petitioner was asked to fumish the details vide order dated 3.8.1990 and when fhe matter was taken up on 14.8.1990, petitioner sought tune and on 25.8.1990 when the matter was taken up, petitioner was again granted time to fumish the details in proforma. On 18.3.1991 the matter was referred to fhe Coinmlssioner, Raipur, X/ J r" for beir^ forwarded to the Secretary, Revenue Department, for onward action. The matter was received back by the Nazul OfEieer on 1.1.1996 from the State Goveminent wlfh a note that the appllcation should be preferred in prescribed format. On 25.1.1997 the petitloner wanted progress of fhe case vlde armexure R 7 and on the sam&letter it was informed to him that State Govemment had directed that application should be in prescribed proforma. On 26.2.1997 the petitioner gave a letter asKing for informatlon as to whether the land soi^ht by the petitioner has been allotted to respondent No. 6 and ifit has been aUotted to respondent No. 6 fhen the appllcation in prescribed proforma was not required. Leamed coiinsel for the respondents submit that there is no right as such avaUable 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 himsetf was not interested in fumishuig the details as required by the Nazul Of&cer, in prescribed proforma- On petitioner's own showii^ he wrote a letter on 26.2.97(AnnexuTe- 14) to the Nazul OfBcer to ascertam as to whether thesjland 8 applled by him had been aUotted to respondent no.6 and If the land had been aUotted to respondent no.6/Dainik Samvet Shiker, then the application in prescribed format was not required. The peUtioner thereafter did not do anyfhing. Even no notice of demand ofjustice was served. It is further stated that the order of atlotment was passed on 5.8.19@4, possession was delivered by 22.8.1994 petitioner has submitted his letter on 26.2. 1997 aad this petition has been filed on 19.9.1998 fhat is after lapse of long tune and no explanation has been given for such long delay. It is also pointed out that durmg the intervening period, five lastitutions have also been allotted land in block no.9 offhe press coinplex, but none oftheni have been unpleaded as parties. Though the parties i.e. State through the Prindpal Secretary, Revenue Dept. Bhopal; the Director, Public Relations Dept. Bhopal; the Conimissioner, Raipur, have been jouied, but no notice of demand of justice has been served. Even respondent No.5 the Nazul Of&cer and respondent no.6, the Chief Executive, DaUy Samvet Shlkher, Raipiir were not served (he notice of deinand ofjustice. (11) Present petition is m the personal capacity and not as Secretary of Yugchetan Prakashan. It is pointed out that even ui kr thls application, prayerforallotmentoftheland hasbeenmade on behalf of the Yug Chetna Prakashan and it was not for the petitioner. Respondents have filed order sheets containing the proceedlngs recorded by the Nazul OfBcer. The order sheet dated 3.8.90 has been referred to where certain information was asked as to "whether fhe Yi^dhaTm w&s registered, whether they have their own sources" It is stated that this information was never submitted and again tune was soi^ht. Then ffae matter was referred to the Dept. of Revenue, State Govemment of M.P. and the Goveminent has directed that the mformation in proforma be caUed for. From the order sheet dated 1.1. 1996 it is clear fhat the applicaat has been informed to fumish the detans in prescribed proforma -'A' In the order sheet~ dated 20.3,1997, it was noted that the case of the petitioner was fonvarded and considered and accordingly, (he petltioner was informed the decislon of the Revenue Department, State of M.P. for allotment of land measurmg 43360 m 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 eannarked. 10 (12) In support ofhis contention, leamed counsel for the respondents relied on ajudgment ofSupreme Court reported m. (19861 4 SCC 566 (State ofM.P. -v- Nandlal Jaiswal and othera) wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: The power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under article 226 is discr^tionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordmarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acqulescent and the lefhargic. Where there is inordinate and unexplained dekiy and third party rights are created ui the intervening period the High Court would decltne to uiterfere even if the State action complained of 1s unconstitutional or illegal because the Coiirts interference is likely to cause confiision and public inconvemence and brmg in new injustices. However, there may be a few cases, where the demand ofjustice is so compeUing UiM fhe High Court would be tnclined to interfere inspite of delay or creation of third party rights. Ultimately, it would be a matter withua the discretton of the Court. Ex-hypothesi every dlscretion must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it." Regarding delay and laches, leamed counsel for the petitioner relied on a judgment of Supreme Court reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489 (Ramana Davaram Shettv - Vs - Intematmnal '*, . ' t" 11 Auport Authoritv oflndia and Others . The relevant portion ofthe said judgment reads as under: "Moreover the writ petition was ffled by the appellant more than 5 months after the acceptance of fhe tender of respondents 4 and during fhis period, respondents 4 Incurred considerable expenditure aggregating to about Rs. 1,25,000/- in maku^; arrai^ements for puttuig up the restaurant and fhe snack bars and ia 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 appeUant. The position would have been different if the apoellant had filed the writ petition iinmediatelv aflber the acceptance of the tender of resoondents 4 but the appellant allowed a Eenod efpver 5 months to elaose durine which resoondents 4 altered fheir TKisition. We are. therefore. of the view that this is not a fit case ui which we should uiterfere and erant relief to fhe appellant ia the exercise of our discretion under Ardcles 226 of the Constitution." (Einphasis suppUed) (13) It has sdready beeri noted that although some allegations have been made regarding conduct and involvement of the then Chief Muiister, but as the Chief Mmister has not been jouied as party respondent and even notice for deinand ofji^tice has not been served and no material regardlng those allegations have *. . 'S,y'' . 7; 12 % :x- r~- \ come on record, detaUed discussion and adjudlcation on this aspect is not reqiiired. Even otherwise,^ it is i)ouited out that fhe office of Chief Minister's Secretariat has fonvarded the petltioner's letter and thereafter respondent no.6 hunself subniitted the application in prescribed proforma and the matter was processed and the State has infonned that the land has been allotted as per the policy which they had and that poUcy was in existence for about 18 years, which was made known to every body. The petitioner ought to have made sultable application in prescribed proforma thls petition is also not on behalf of the organization, but on behalf of an indlvidual. (14) Dr.N.K-Shukla, counsel for fhe State submltted fhat the State has no niaUce towards any person, now fhe new State of Chhattisgarh has been fonned and the State Govcmment of Chattisgarh has no inallce. Petitioner, tf so deslred, may make suitable application in prescribed proforma. In case such an application is made, then the State shaU consider the sanie 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 /Rao/