Case: M/S Vishal Properties Vs. State Of U.P.

appellant and NOIDA. The terms and conditions contained in the brochure were repeated in the lease deed. The relevant clauses of the lease deed are quoted below: “X(A). The ground floor (of the building constructed on the allotted office plot) will be exclusively used for parking and no temporary or permanent construction of any sort would be allowed in any circumstances.X(B). Construction of basement is optional and if constructed, shall be as per architectural control drawing and building plans approved by the lessor.X(C). No barricade or boundary wall will be permitted on any side of the plot and there will be free access from one plot to another on the ground floor.X(D). The first and above floors of the building constructed on the allotted plot will be exclusively used for showroom-cum-office only. The above floors of the building constructed on the allotted plot will be exclusively used for office only and for no other purpose.XI. - That the lessee shall obey and submit the rules, building regulations and directions of the lessor, and proper municipal or other authority now existing or hereinafter to exist, so far as the same relate to the immovable property in the said area so far as they affect the health, safety and convenience of the other inhabitants of the place.XIV. (A) The plot or building thereon shall not be used for a purpose other than that specified in the lease deed and architectural control drawings prescribed by the lessor. The architectural control drawings will be supplied by the lessor on payment of the prescribed fee by the allottee who shall carry out construction of the plot strictly in accordance with the same after the approval from the lessor.XXI. If the lessee does not abide by the terms and conditions and building rules or any other rules framed by the Authority, the lease may be cancelled by the lessor and the lessee in such event will not be entitled to claim any compensation in respect thereof.” (Emphasis Supplied) 12. Even otherwise, Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate an illegality. It provides for positive equality and not negative equality. Therefore, we are not bound to direct any Authority to repeat the wrong action done by it earlier. In Sushanta Tagore & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2005 (3) SCC 16 ), this Court rejected such a contention as sought to be advanced in the present case by observing:- “Only because some advantages would ensue to the people in general by reason of the proposed development, the same would not mean that the ecology of the place would be sacrificed. Only because some encroachments have been made and unauthorised buildings have been constructed, the same by itself cannot be a good ground for allowing other constructional activities to come up which would be in violation of the provisions of the Act. Illegal encroachments, if any, may be removed in accordance with law. It is trite law that there is no equality in illegality.” 13. This view also finds support from the judgments of the this Court in Snehprabha v. State of U.P. & Ors., (AIR 1996 SC 540 ); Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jam & Ors., (1997 (1) SCC 35 ), State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997 (3) SCC 321 ), and Faridabad C.T. Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services & Ors. (1997 (7) SCC 752 ). 14. In Finance Commissioner (Revenue) v. Gulab Chandra & Anr. (2001 AIR SCW 4774) this Court rejected the contention that as other similarly situated persons had been retained in service, persons senior to the petitioner could not have been discharged during the period of probation observing that even if no action had been taken in similar situation against similarly situated persons then too it did not confer any legal right upon the petitioner. 15. In Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh, (AIR 1999 SC 1347 ) and Union of India & Ors. v. Rakesh Kumar (AIR 2001 SC 1877 ), this Court held that Courts cannot issue a direction that the same mistake be perpetuated on the ground of discrimination or hardship. 16. Any action/order contrary to law does not confer any right upon any person for similar treatment. (See: State of Punjab & Ors. v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal, (1999 (9) SCC 240 ); Yogesh Kumar & Ors. v. Government of NCT Delhi & Ors., (2003 (3) SCC 548 ); Union of India & Anr. v. International Trading Company & Anr., (2003 (5) SCC 437 ) and M/s Anand Button Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2005 AIR SCW 67). 17. Recently in State of Kerala v. K. Prasad & Anr. (JT 2007 (9) SC 140 ), it was inter alia held as follows: “14. Dealing with such pleas at some length, this Court in Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh & Anr. has held that if the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be exercised for such a purpose. This position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. [See: Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur v. Daulat Mal Jain & Ors. and Exta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi. It would, thus, suffice to say that an order made in favour of a person in violation of the prescribed procedure cannot form a legal premise for any other person to claim parity with the said illegal or irregular order. A judicial forum cannot be used to perpetuate the illegalities.” 18. In view of the factual position, the actions of the respondents are not without sanction of law.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]The authorities may have acted in an irregular manner in case of some others. That does not confer any legal right on the appellant to claim a similar benefitEven otherwise, Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate an illegality. It provides for positive equality and not negative equality. Therefore,are not bound to direct any Authority to repeat the wrong action done by it earlier. Inview of the factual position, the actions of the respondents are not without sanction of law.