SUMAN AGGARWAL Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It was more than four decades back that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that "it must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesses, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norm which is not Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesses including award of jobs, contracts quotas, licences etc., must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be unreasonable shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, or discriminatory (Refer: Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 26).

(2.) The instant case depicts sordid, despotic and nepotic functioning of respondent No.1. Despite there being no advertisement or even proposal on behalf of respondent No.1, the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 with the proposal for constructing a shop under self-financing scheme. What is more surprisingly is that respondent No. 1 entertained such request and asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- as earnest money for construction of shop in near future and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of possession of the shop, as per the endorsement made by respondent No. 1 on the application. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 27.01.2009. Thereafter petitioner repeatedly visited the office of respondent No. 1 to deposit the balance amount towards the cost of construction of the shop but the request of the petitioner was delayed on one pretext or the other.

(3.) In July 2013, petitioner came to know that respondent No. 1 was again planning to construct the shop for renting out to some third person. Therefore, she again approached the Chairman to of respondent clarification and requested the authorities to permit her to r No. deposit the balance amount towards the cost of the construction 1 seeking of shop, in addition to the amount of Rs.10,000/-already deposited. However, the said request was declined and petitioner was asked to take back the earnest money. Despite having no right much less legal right the petitioner, thereafter got served legal notice on respondent No. 1 seeking therein direction to respondent No. 1 to take immediate steps for construction of the shop for allotting the same in favour of the petitioner on lease basis. Respondent No. 1 did not pay any heed to the said notice and, therefore, the petitioner made a complaint to the SDM, Paonta Sahib to take necessary action. The petitioner thereafter on 14.10.2013 filed a civil suit in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Paonta Sahib against the respondents/defendants for permanent prohibitory injunction and filed an application seeking interim relief for restraining defendants for renting out or delivering possession of the shop. The learned Court vide order dated 18.10.2013, restrained the defendant/respondent No. 1 for renting out or delivering the possession of the shop till the next date of hearing.