Prem Sarup and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and anr. - Court Judgment

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 neither pick and choose any person arbitrarily for entering into such agreement nor can it discriminate between persons similarly circumstanced. similarly, where breach of contract at hands of state violates fundamental rights of a citizen or its refusal to enter into a contract is contrary to statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and 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. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to maintain writ petition and assail action of state government or its authorities by contending that his bid has been turned down for arbitrary, illegal or perverse reasons however in such matters, heavy onus would like on petitioner bidder to establish his allegations as state action shall always be presumed to be in accordance with law - the demarcation was conducted on 28.5.2004 and thereafter the respondents had clearly stated that the shops existing on the government land would be demolished. amongst others in order to provide safety to the persons using the highway as pedestrains, passengers of a car or a bus and others like two-wheelers, light or heavy vehicles it was considered appropriate to issue directions for maintaining flow of traffic, avoiding accidents and removal of unauthorised obstructions/construction on the national highway. 7. in feet a high powered committee in which different senior officers of the concerned governments, national highways authority of india, police officers and even the representatives of the elected bodies like corporation etc. all the concerned officers of the respective bodies were directed to comply with the directions of the court without fail.swantanter kumar, j.1. the petitioners have approached this court under article 226/227 of the constitution of india praying for issuance of a writ of prohibition and mandamus restraining the respondents from demolishing the shops of the petitioners. all the three petitioners claim to have purchased the shops alongwith land underneath thereof vide registered sale deeds executed in their favour on 31.10.1991, 26.2.2000 and 8.9.1997 respectively. according to the petitioners these shops are located on the chandigarh-ambala highway. location of these shops has been shown in site plan, annexure pi to the writ petition, which shows that these shops are practically abutting the national highway. the petitioners claim to be owners in possession of these shops and are continuing their business for a considerable time to the knowledge and notice of the respondents and without any objection from them. the petitioners state that the respondents are now giving threats to them that they would demolish their shops as they have encroached upon the land belonging to the government. it is specifically averred in the petition that the respondents are conducting the demarcation in a manner contrary to law and the instructions issued by the financial commissioner. the demarcation was conducted on 28.5.2004 and thereafter the respondents had clearly stated that the shops existing on the government land would be demolished. a news item in this regard is stated to have appeared in punjab kesri dated 28.5.2004, copy of which is annexed to the writ petition as annexure p2. effected from the threats of the respondents, the petitioners have filed this writ petition before this court.2. this writ petition came up for hearing before a division bench of this court on 8.6.2004 on which date the counsel for the petitioners sought time to place on record some documents.3. on 3.7.2004 this case was listed again alongwith civil misc. nos.10621-22 of 204. vide these applications, the petitioners prayed for leave to place on record copies of the sale deeds and akash latha on record as annexures a1 to a5. we allowed these applications and permitted the documents to be placed on record.4. we had heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and at the very outset we may notice that in annexures a1 to a5 in the sale deeds itself it had been stated that a site plan is attached and separate possession of the purchaser is also shown in the map. none of these site plans which is part of the registered document has been placed on record. furthermore, it is the case of the petitioners themselves that the respondents have effected the demarcation and are threatening to demolish the unauthorised structure of construction on the government land or on the national highway. the counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that they have no right to cover the national highway or the government land. their rights are obviously restricted to the land which they have purchased bona fidely. no document has been placed on record to show what portion of their private property is being sought to be interfered and demolished by the respondents. the petition suffers from the defect of vague averments. the petition also lacks bona fides inasmuch as the threat is stated to have been given on 28.5.2004 or prior thereto but till today nothing has happened and no part of the shops owned by the petitioners has been demolished.5. we are not. prepared to accept the contention that the respondents have no jurisdiction or authority to remove the goods of the petitioners or any other unauthorised structure raised on the government land or the national highway.6. during the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the news item which in turn says that unauthorised constructions on the government land and on the national highway were being demolished in furtherance to the orders passed by the high court. learned counsel for the petitioners also conceded that certain directions have been issued by the high court in this regard. we had called for the file of c.w.p. no. 7639 of 1995, namit kumar v. chandigarh administration and ors. in which various directions have been issued with regard to improvement of the national highway. amongst others in order to provide safety to the persons using the highway as pedestrains, passengers of a car or a bus and others like two-wheelers, light or heavy vehicles it was considered appropriate to issue directions for maintaining flow of traffic, avoiding accidents and removal of unauthorised obstructions/construction on the national highway. these directions were passed after due examination of various facets including some inconvenience which may be caused to the persons who are encroaching upon the national highway and are obstructing the flow of traffic.7. in feet a high powered committee in which different senior officers of the concerned governments, national highways authority of india, police officers and even the representatives of the elected bodies like corporation etc. were members, vide orders of the court passed in that writ petition directions were issued for removal of unauthorised encroachment and illegal construction on the national highway and public land adjacent to the national highway. there was slackness on the part of the authorities. resultantly, even a notice as to why proceedings under the contempt of courts act be not initiated against them was issued by the court on 5.5.2004. in that order a specific reference was made as to how the public money was wasted and in fact additional benefit was being provided to the shop-keepers to encroach upon the government land and the national highway. it is thereafter that these public bodies started taking steps in accordance with law. ultimately, vide order dated 26.5.2004 a specific direction was issued for completing the work of fixation of grills on the national highway, to provide a bus stop/bus shelter on the side of the road after removing encroachments and to ensure smooth running of the traffic on the duel carriage national highway. this particularly related to zirakpur, dera bassi, ambala and panipat. all the concerned officers of the respective bodies were directed to comply with the directions of the court without fail. the said writ petition is fixed for hearing on 14.7.2004. in our opinion, the respondents are exercising their power bonafidely and in furtherance to the orders of the court. such action of the respondents does not call for any interference.8. even if we ignore the conduct of the petitioners and the above facts noticed by us, still it will not be appropriate for this court to pass orders which would be in conflict with the orders passed in the said writ petition. it is a matter of public importance and welfare. we see no threat to the interests of the petitioners if they are not encroaching upon the public land or the national highway. learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously argued that the demarcation has not been done as per procedure for identifying the land which they had purchased under the sale-deeds. though the sale deeds have been brought on record, but intentionally the respondents have not annexed site plans to the said sale deeds. the petitioners are at liberty to approach the concerned revenue authorities for demarcation in accordance with law, but they have no right, whatsoever, to encroach upon the same. we have also no doubt that the revenue authorities would look into the matter again in accordance with law.9. we see no reason to interfere in this writ petition. in fact the present writ petition, on the face of it, appears to be an abuse of the process of the court. the petitioners could apply for clarification or modification of the orders passed in c.w.p. no. 7639 of 1995, if permitted in law. consequently, the writ petition is dismissed without any costs.