Dr. J.R.D. Ahuja (Died) and ors. Vs. Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/625755
SubjectCivil
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJul-21-1998
Case NumberCivil Writ Petition No. 1419 of 1995
Judge G.S. Singhvi and; Iqbal Singh, JJ.
Reported in(1998)120PLR453
ActsCapital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 - Sections 8A and 10; Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules - Rules 9 and 19A; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(1), 21 and 226
AppellantDr. J.R.D. Ahuja (Died) and ors.
RespondentAdvisor to the Administrator, Union Territory and ors.
Appellant Advocate C.B. Goel, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. and; Subhash Goyal, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredBabu Singh Bains v. Union of India
Excerpt:
- administrative law - government contract: [vijender jain, c.j., rajive bhalla & sury kant, jj] government contract rejection of highest bid challenge as to held, state has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto, state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. the state is free to enter into a contract just like any other individual and the contract shall not change its legal character merely because other party to contract is state. though no citizen possesses a legal right to compel state to enter into a contract, yet latter can.....g.s. singhvi, j.1. this petition has been filed with the following prayer:i) records of the whole case may kindly be summoned;ii) a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing annexure p/4 and the proceedings held and actions taken thereunder with further declaration striking down and quashing section 8-a of the capital of punjab (development and regulation) act, 1952 and rule 9 of the chandigarh (sale of sites and buildings) rules, 1960 as unconstitutional being violative of articles 14, 19(l)(g) and 21 of the constitution of india;iii) filing of certified copies of annexures may kindly be dispensed with as the same are not readily available with the petitioners;iv) sending of advance notices to the respondents may also kindly be dispensed with;v) the costs of the.....
Judgment:

G.S. Singhvi, J.

1. This petition has been filed with the following prayer:

i) Records of the whole case may kindly be summoned;

ii) A writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing Annexure P/4 and the proceedings held and actions taken thereunder with further declaration striking down and quashing Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and Rule 9 of the Chandigarh (Sale of sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960 as unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 19(l)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India;

iii) Filing of certified copies of annexures may kindly be dispensed with as the same are not readily available with the petitioners;

iv) sending of advance notices to the respondents may also kindly be dispensed with;

v) The costs of the writ petition be also allowed;

vi) Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the peculiar circumstances of the case be also passed in the interest of justice.

vii) Pending this writ petition, the operation of the impugned notice dated 13.12.1994, Annexure P/4 and the proceedings taken thereunder may kindly be stayed in the meanwhile;

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are convinced that the prayer of the petitioners for striking down Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and Rule 9 of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960 cannot be accepted in view of the judgments of the Full Bench of this Court in Ram Puri v. Chief Commissioner, U.T. Chandigarh, (1982) 84 P.L.R. 388 (F.B.) and of the Supreme Court in Babu Singh Bains v. Union of India, (1997-2) 115 P.L.R. 250 (S.C.). In these judgments the Full Bench of the High Court and the Apex Court have upheld the vires of Section 8-A.

3. The other prayer made by the petitioners to quash the notice dated 13.12.1994 deserves to be rejected as pre-mature. The petitioners are free to file their reply and challenge the adverse order, if any, passed by the competent authority by filing appeal/revision under Section 10 of 1952 Act and in our opinion there is no extra ordinary reason for entertaining the writ petition against the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Estate Officer.

4. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed. However we make it clear that the respondents shall be free to take further proceedings in pursuance of Annexure P/4. The petitioners shall also be free to file their reply and produce evidence to show that the premises in question are not being misused by them. If the competent authority passes any order adversely affecting the rights of the petitioners, they shall be free to avail appropriate remedy available to them under the statute.