Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 885 (MP)

Manish Khare v. State of M. P.

2020-09-10

SANJAY DWIVEDI

body2020
ORDER 1. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is mainly raising grievance against the action of respondent No.3 as a notification dated 28.07.2020 and corrigendum dated 30.7.2020 was published inviting online bids for leasing various plots owned by the respondent/Jabalpur Development Authority (in short “JDA”) under different schemes but the Minimum Acceptable Bid Value (Reserved value) was not in accordance with the provisions of rule 6(viii) of Madhya Pradesh Vikas Pradhikarano Ki Sampatiyon Ka Prabandhan Tatha Vyayan Niyam, 2018 (in short, “Rules, 2018”), which is depriving the petitioner and other persons of participation in the auction proceeding as the reserved value of the plots was on a higher side. The said reserved value was determined by adopting illegal method ignoring the mannerism provided for determination of the reserved value under the Rules, 2018. Therefore, the instant petition has been filed for seeking quashment of the impugned notification dated 28.7.2020 and corrigendum dated 30.7.2020. 2. The relevant facts lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that the JDA is a formation of Statute which is known as Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, exercising power conferred by section 86 read with section 58, the State of M.P. notified the Rules, 2018 vide gazette notification dated 1.10.2018 regulating the management and lease of properties owned by various City Development Authorities across the State. As such, the JDA comes within the purview of State as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Rule 6(viii) of Rules, 2018 provides mannerism as to under which reserved value or minimum acceptable bid value of a land is calculated. Sub-rule (viii) of rule 6 reads as under:- “(viii) The reserve price of the property under this rule shall be calculated as under:- (a) In case of land/plot:- (i) Reserved value of residential property = [area of land/plot in sq. mt.] X [the rate of developed plot (Rs. Per sq. mt.) on the date of notification of invitations for proposal according to price guide principle (Collector Guideline) in the same residential area] Under these rules, for the purpose of calculating, if it is found that the property which is to be disposed is situated in the area for which the Collector Guidelines Rate have not been issued, then such situation, the rate (in sq. mt.) of developed plot according to the price guiding principle (Collector Guideline) of the nearest residential developed area (whose FAR should not be less than 1), will be valid.” In a meeting of the Board of Directors of JDA held on 16.10.2019, a proposal was put-up for leasing out 21 plots available under two schemes and those schemes were placed before the Board of Directors for its approval and then it was decided that the highest bid received for a scheme in the proposals invited prior to 16.10.2019 shall be treated as the Reserved Value (Minimum Acceptable Bid) for any plot to be leased in that scheme and online applications to be invited showing such reserved price. Accordingly, the applications were invited by issuing notification dated 28.7.2020 and corrigendum dated 30.7.2020 (Annexure-P/5). 3. As per the petitioner, the JDA has no right to develop any mechanism as per their own convenience and such a decision is contrary to the provision of rule 4 of Rules, 2018. It is also submitted by the petitioner that the JDA has also violated the provisions of rule 6 of Rules, 2018. Rule 6 deals with the disposal of properties by inviting bids and further a procedure which has to be adopted during the process of inviting bids in sealed cover/online. In a nutshell, the grievance of the petitioner as has been raised in the petition is that the minimum price of the plots put for auction, has been concluded by the JDA by adopting the method which is foreign to the provisions of Rules, 2018 and contrary to the provisions which are prescribed under the Rules, 2018. Since minimum price quoted by the JDA was exorbitantly higher than the actual price, the petitioner and other persons have been deprived of participation in the same and as such the object for allotting the plots to the landless persons or lower/middle class persons is frustrated. 4. The respondents/JDA have filed their reply and virtually admitted to all the facts but raised an objection in respect of the locus of the petitioner and also mentioned that on earlier occasion advertisements were issued and minimum price for the plots put for auction has been determined by adopting the same mannerism which has been followed by issuing notification relating to the plots in question on 28.7.2020 and 30.7.2020. Therefore, there is no illegality and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. So far as the objection raised regarding locus of the petitioner is concerned, I am of the opinion that such objection is not sustainable inasmuch as the petitioner was indeed not a participant in the auction proceeding in question and has, therefore, no right to challenge the said auction proceedings. However, the petitioner’s grievance is that the JDA has not followed the procedure prescribed under the Statute and showing minimum price of plots put for auction by adopting a method which is totally foreign to the Statute and showing minimum price on a higher side depriving the petitioner of participation in the auction proceeding, he has every right to challenge such an illegality of respondent/authority because it is not expected from the respondent/authority, which is a formation of the State, to behave in such an illegal manner. The basic grievance raised by the petitioner is that by showing minimum price of the plots exorbitantly on higher side depriving the petitioner and other persons to take part in the proceedings and as such, they have right to challenge such illegality before this Court. In my opinion, the objection raised by the respondent/authority under the present facts and circumstances, when they are not disputing the method adopted by them which is not prescribed under the provisions of Rules, 2018 is not sustainable and thus such objection is rejected. 6. It is further submitted by the respondents that even on earlier occasion an advertisement was issued by the JDA putting plots for auction online but nobody had challenged such auction proceeding and, therefore, atpresent, if the same method is adopted calculating the minimum price of the plots on the basis of which same was evaluated when earlier notifications was issued, there is nothing illegal in it and the impugned notification, only on this count, cannot be quashed. However, I am not satisfied with the contentions of the respondents for the reason that if any irregularity and illegality has been committed by the JDA, it does not mean that the Court should permit them to perpetuate the same only because such illegality already committed was not challenged by anybody. 7. However, I am not satisfied with the contentions of the respondents for the reason that if any irregularity and illegality has been committed by the JDA, it does not mean that the Court should permit them to perpetuate the same only because such illegality already committed was not challenged by anybody. 7. At this juncture, is is appropriate to see the provisions of rule 4 of Rules,2018, which read as under:- “Disposal of Government property.– (1) Any Government property vested in or managed by the Authority shall be managed in accordance with the general or special sanction of the State Government given in respect of such property. The Authority shall neither alienate it nor create encumbrance of any kind of such property in any manner which may be contrary to such general or special direction of the State Government given in respect of such property. (2) Subject to the general or special sanction of the State Government, such Government property where so required, shall be disposed of in accordance with the procedure prescribed under these rules.” The aforesaid provision binds the Government as to in what manner, the property relating to the Government can be alienated. Further rule 6 very categorically provides the manner in which the properties of JDA can be disposed of and further provides the mechanism under which the reserved price of the plots put for auction is eventuated. 8. Indisputably, the procedure as adopted and proposed by the JDA in its meeting of the Board of Directors held on 16.10.2019 is contrary to the provisions as prescribed under Rules, 2018. Therefore, such mechanism is illegal and cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. The notification based upon such a minimum price is not acceptable and, therefore, is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is a settled principle of law that things are to be done in the same manner as is provided under the Statute but not otherwise. Therefore, such mechanism is illegal and cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. The notification based upon such a minimum price is not acceptable and, therefore, is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is a settled principle of law that things are to be done in the same manner as is provided under the Statute but not otherwise. In a recent judgment of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2017 SCC Online Hyd 426 (M.Shankara Reddy and another v. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao and others), the Division Bench relying upon the Supreme Court decisions in the case of Shiv Kumar Chandha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1993) 3 SCC 161 and Ram Chandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Jyoti (1975) 1 SCC 559 has held that when a statute describes or requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all. 9. Accordingly, the impugned notification dated 28.7.2020 and corrigendum dated 30.7.2020 are hereby set aside as they are contrary to law. The Respondent/authority is granted liberty to issue notification by showing proper minimum reserve price after adopting the procedure as prescribed under provisions of Rules, 2018. 10. As a result, the petition is allowed with the aforesaid liberty to the JDA.