<b>Brief case</b>: Rejecting highest bid to prevent 'plunder'

A weekly selection of key court orders

The Supreme Court has stated that by rejecting the bid for a huge commercial property in Gurgaon, the Haryana Urban Development Authority acted in the interest of the public and state revenue, and the 9.5 acres in the city was “saved from being plundered.” It quashed the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had ruled that Orchid Infrastructure Developers had a right on the land as its bid was the highest. The company had offered Rs 111.75 crore. However, later it was found that even in smaller towns like Faridabad, Punchkula and Panipat, the auction trend showed the property was worth much more. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the rejection of the bid was justified and “beyond the pale of judicial scrutiny”.  A bidder has no vested interest in the matter except the right of fair treatment. He cannot insist on further negotiations.  There was no contract because the bid had not been accepted and the advance amount was returned. The court imposed Rs 5 lakh fine on the company which will be shared equally by the advocates’ fund and the SC employees’ welfare fund.

 
Land acquisition for industries approved
 
The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the high court which had quashed the acquisition of land under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act on the ground that compensation was not given within the stipulated period. The time limit was set by the old Land Acquisition Act. The question arose whether the old legislation applies when it has been replaced in 2014 by the new law called the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act. In this judgment, Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Anasuya Bai, the Supreme Court ruled that once the proceedings are initiated under the Karnataka Act, the old central law would not be applicable. The state law dealt with industrial development and it is a complete code in itself. The central law deals with acquisition for various purposes like town planning and housing. Therefore land acquisition under the state industrial law would not lapse just because it had not followed the procedure in the central law.

 

Bihar govt wins appeal on mining
 
The Bihar government won its appeal last week when the Supreme Court upheld the demand of higher royalty from miners who excavated various types of boulders, pebbles and gravel from the basin of Pandai river in some districts. The goods, covered by the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, are used for making stone chips. There were two notifications, one fixing higher royalty and a later one naming the districts where the mining could be done. The miners argued that the new rate should be applicable from the later one, not retrospectively. The Patna high court allowed their plea. But the government appealed to the Supreme Court. It overturned the high court judgment and ruled that the second notification was applicable retrospectively. The later notification, it said, only clarified the places from where the minor minerals could be collected. When a notification is issued to clarify certain omissions or clear doubts in the earlier notification, it does not substantially change the rules. In this case, the rate of royalty has not been touched by the second notification and therefore the rate was applicable retrospectively.

 
How officials collude with builders
 
The Delhi High Court last week cited Supreme Court judgments which pointed out a “racket” among government officers who act on behalf of private companies which win cases. These “black sheep” do not allow the government authorities to file appeals on time, hoping that the court would eventually dismiss the appeals on the ground of limitation, benefiting the private parties. The court found the case of Delhi Development Authority (DDA) Vs Engineering & Industrial Corporation was one such and asked the vice-chairman of DDA to identify the officers who were responsible for the delay of more than six years in filing an appeal. The court asked him to recover Rs 5 lakh from them and deposit it in the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund. DDA admitted during arguments that the delay might be due to “collusion and connivance” of officials at various levels. The files were misplaced and officers handling the case were either retired or transferred. The builder in this case got property worth crores in a posh Delhi colony, allegedly through encroachment on public land. Though the builder had won his case long ago, DDA did not file an appeal. The high court condoned the delay in public interest and admitted the appeal making severe observations against such practice prevalent at all levels.

 
Cheque bounce trial allowed to proceed
 
The Delhi High Court last week ruled that in a cheque bounce case, civil and criminal cases can run simultaneously. In this case, Kirti Premraaj vs Moser Baer Clean Energy Ltd, three cheques were issued to the company following a memorandum of understanding regarding purchase of large tracts of land in Gujarat. However, the purchase could not be completed because of legal hurdles. Kirti had offered three undated cheques to the company which it tendered for realisation. They bounced because of insufficient funds or stoppage of payment. Therefore, a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed in Delhi and the metropolitan magistrate issued process. The drawer then moved the high court to quash the summons, arguing that the cheques were “security against advance” pursuant to the memorandum and there was no liability or legally enforceable debt. The court rejected the contentions and dismissed the petition finding that all ingredients of the offence were present in the case and the civil suit in Gujarat was no impediment.

 
Illegal ads on roads must be removed
 
The Bombay High Court has blamed political parties and organisers of religious and other events for defacing the roads and walls all over the state with illegal advertisements, posters and sky signs. It issued a set of 32 directions to prevent the menace which persists violating municipal laws and the Prevention of Defacement of Property Act. Earlier orders have not been implemented for various reasons. The judgment in a batch of public interest petitions, led by Suswarajya Foundation, stated that for enforcement of the orders “the municipal and other authorities will have to be supported with adequate police force, including armed constables”. It is high time that the political parties and especially their leaders and workers do not adopt arm-twisting tactics and take recourse to pressurising municipal and police officers.”