1 W.P. No.7182/10 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul Writ Petition No.7182 of 2010 Ram Singh Raghuvanshi Vs. M.P.Grih Nirman Mandal and another A N D Writ Petition No.7322 of 2010 Shailendra Singh Raghuvanshi and others -Vs- M.P.Grih Nirman Mandal and another ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner by Shri Anmol Khedkar, Advocate. Respondent-Board by Smt. Nidhi Patankar, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R ( /09/2011) Since the aforesaid two matters are similar, with the consent of the parties both the petitions (Writ Petitions No.7182/2010 and 7322/2010) were heard together. 2. The petitioners have called in question the legality, validity and propriety of the second advertisement (Annexure P/2) in the present writ petition. The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 7.10.2010, they preferred applications to purchase residential plots. After preferring applications they deposited the requisite amount with the respondent-Board. 2 W.P. No.7182/10 Thereafter they were expecting that the plots will be allotted to them to enable them to construct the residential accommodation on it. However, learned counsel submits that the impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 19.11.2010 came as a bolt from blue to the petitioners whereby their offer has been cancelled by the competent authority. This order is called in question in this petition and also the subsequent advertisement, Annexure P/2, whereby in addition to the plots which were included in earlier advertisement, Annexure P/3, certain new plots were added and a new advertisement was issued. 3. This Court while issuing notices to the other side on 2.12.2010 directed the parties to maintain status quo in the matter. 4. Petitioners have assailed the impugned order (Annexure P/1) on following grounds:- (i) The impugned order does not contain any reason; (ii) It is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable; (iii) As against first advertisement containing 14 plots, 23 applications were received whereas as against second advertisement containing 17 plots 22 applications are received, yet the respondents decided to continue with the process; (iv) As per Clause 10 of Annexure P/4 the Board was empowered to reject a particular application but there is no enabling power in these conditions to cancel the entire process. Thus, there is apparent arbitrariness and unreasonableness on the part of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that this 3 W.P. No.7182/10 is a discriminatory action. In support of this contention, he relied on AIR 1978 SC 851 (Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others) (Paragraph 8), (1990) 3 SCC 752 (Mahabir Auto Stores and Others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Others) (paragraph 12) and (2007) 6 SCC 81 (Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Maddula Ratnavalli and Others). On the strength of these judgments, the petitioners submit that issuance of second advertisement and cancellation of offer is wholly arbitrary and bad in law. 5. Per Contra, Smt. Nidhi Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the Board submits that a conscious decision was taken pursuant to Annexure R/1 by the Board to cancel the entire process. By placing reliance on Annexure R/1, it is submitted that the first advertisement dated 7.10.2010 was not given wide publicity and it was published in two newspapers, which were not having wide publicity/circulation. The Board received only 23 applications for 14 plots. She further submits that the Board is doing a commercial activity and, therefore, wide publicity and getting good price is a matter of utmost consideration for the Board. She submits that there is no illegality or unreasonableness in taking decision (Annexure R/1) and passing the impugned order. The stand of the Board is that as per terms and conditions (Condition No.36), it was the sole prerogative of the Board to 4 W.P. No.7182/10 reject the offer and no reasons were required to be assigned for the same. The petitioners with open eyes had signed these terms and conditions and they cannot turn around and say that the said conditions are bad in law or the respondents have committed any error in not assigning any reason in Annexure P/1. Smt. Patanker learned Government Advocate for respondents submits that since respondent is engaged in business activity, getting good price from the public is not only prime consideration, but it is essential for the survival of the organization in the present day of market economy and cut throat competition. She further submits that as against second advertisement, 164 application forms were sold by the Board because second advertisement was given wide publicity thereby attracting sizeable number of applicants in comparison to the earlier advertisement. She submits that there is no irrationality and unreasonableness in the decision, Annexure R/1. Merely because, reason is not assigned in the impugned order will not vitiate the action of the respondents. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Shri Khedkar relied on (1990) 3 SCC 752 (Mahabir Auto Stores and Others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and Others). The legal principal laid down in the said matter is not in dispute in the present case. The present case is not a case where there no reason is assigned by the Board while taking the decision of 5 W.P. No.7182/10 cancelling the earlier process. Reasons are very much there in Annexure R/1. A committee consisting of four Officers of the respondents/Board took a decision on the objective consideration of the matter and decided to cancel the offer with a view to get better offer. Reasons given for such cancellation are:- (i) The advertisement was not given wide publicity. (ii) Less number of applications, for purchase of land were received. (iii) Considering the situation, low offers are not acceptable. 8. The judgment in Mahabir Auto Stores (supra) has no application in the fact and circumstances of this case. In the present case, there exist reasons, which are given in Annexure R/ 1 and merely because those are not reproduced in Annexure P/1, it will not vitiate or render Annexure P/1 as illegal. There is no manner of doubt that decision Annexure P/1 and R/1 can be subjected to judicial review by this Court under Article 226 of the constitution, therefore Mahabir Auto Stores (supra) is applicable to the extent it deals with the question of judicial review by this Court about the decision taken by respondents. Shri Khedkar also relied on Bharat Petroleum (supra) in para-13, the Apex Court has held that decision should not be based on subjective satisfaction of authorities, this judgement also has no application in the fact and circumstances because the Committee has taken 6 W.P. No.7182/10 into account the aforesaid reasons for cancelling the process. 9. Since reasons are already given, the only question is whether such reasons are unreasonable, capricious, arbitrary or against wednesbury's principle ? 10. To what extent this Court can undertake the judicial review of such administrative decision, is no more res-integra. 11. The Apex Court in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation and Another Vs. Jagdamba Oil Mills and Another, reported in (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 496 has held as under:- “Even so the extent of judicial scrutiny/ judicial review in the case of administrative action cannot be larger than in the case of quasi- judicial action. If the High Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the decisions and orders of quasi-judicial authorities, it follows equally that it cannot do so in the case of administrative authorities. In the matter of administrative action, it is well know, more than one choice is available to the administrative authorities; they have a certain amount of discretion available to them. The court cannot substitute its judgement for the judgement of administrative authorities in such cases. Only when the action of the administrative authority is so unfair or unreasonable that no reasonable person would have taken that action, can the court intervene.” 12. The Apex Court in the case of State of NCT and Delhi and Another Vs. Sanjeev @ Bittoo reporte d in (2005) 5 Supreme Court Cases 181 held as under:- 7 W.P. No.7182/10 “Administrative action is stated to be referable to broad area of governmental activities in which the repositories of power may exercise every class of statutory function of executive, quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial nature. The scope of judicial review of adminstrative orders is rather limited. The consideration is limited to the legality of decision making process and not legality of the order per se. The test is to see whether there is an infirmity in the decision making process and not in the decision itself. Mere possibility of another view cannot be ground for interference. To characterise a decision of the administrator as “irrational” the court has to hold, on material, that it is a decision “so outrageous” as to be in total defiance of logic or moral standards. Adoption of “proportionality” into administrative law was left for the future.” 13. In view of the aforesaid legal position, it is crystal clear that there is limited scope of interference against administrative decision and orders passed by the authorities. Authorities are best judge to run their organization and decide their nature of activity including business. Examining the reasons as per law laid down by Supreme Court would show that reasons are plausible reasons. It cannot be said that the reasons assigned by the Board are such on which no reasonable man can arrive at. The business interest and other objective material was considered by the Board while taking the said judgment vide Annexure R/1. 14. Apart from this, mere submission of application does not create any legal right in favour of the petitioners. In absence of any legal right being created in favour of the petitioners, no fault 8 W.P. No.7182/10 can be found in the action of respondent No.1 in issuing Annexure R/1. There is no need for any specific power to cancel the entire process by the Board. 15. It is prerogative of the Board to issue any advertisement or pass order and cancel it in accordance with the law and scope of judicial review on these issues are very limited. I do not find any arbitrariness or irrationality or illegality in decision making process of Annexure R/1. In the result, petition is not entertained, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sujoy Paul) Judge (Yog)/vs*