Supreme Court overturns judgment, orders costs payment to appellants. High Court faulted for lack of investigation.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the respondents to pay the costs of the appellants. The Court emphasized that the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition based on alleged discriminatory treatment without proper investigation and findings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the cancellation of lease due to default in payment.
2. Validity of the High Court's decision based on alleged discriminatory treatment.
3. Applicability of the principle of discrimination in administrative decisions.
4. Timeliness and legitimacy of the respondents' claims and petitions.

Summary:

1. Legality of the cancellation of lease due to default in payment:
The respondents were the highest bidders in an auction held by the Chandigarh Administration on 29-9-1975 for a plot in Sector 31-A, Chandigarh. They defaulted on the first installment due on 27-9-1976, leading to the cancellation of the lease by the Estate Officer after due notice and hearing. The respondents' appeal to the Chief Administrator was dismissed, although the forfeiture amount was reduced from 10% to 2.5%. A subsequent revision petition was also dismissed. The respondents took back the amount deposited by them minus the forfeited amount in 1979.

2. Validity of the High Court's decision based on alleged discriminatory treatment:
The High Court allowed the respondents' writ petition on the ground that another individual, Smt. Prakash Rani, had her plot restored under similar circumstances. The High Court directed the restoration of the plot to the respondents, stating that the respondents had already paid the entire auction amount including penal interest. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court did not investigate whether Prakash Rani's case was identical to the respondents' case or whether the distinction pointed out by the Administration's counsel was correct.

3. Applicability of the principle of discrimination in administrative decisions:
The Supreme Court held that the mere fact that an authority has passed a particular order in another person's case cannot be the sole ground for issuing a writ in favor of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The legality and validity of the order in the other person's case must be established first. The Court emphasized that each case must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles.

4. Timeliness and legitimacy of the respondents' claims and petitions:
The respondents' second review petition was allowed by the Chief Commissioner in 1985, permitting them to pay the entire amount within sixty days, which they failed to do. Their writ petition filed in 1990 was dismissed on the grounds of persistent default and the rise in plot prices. The filing of WP (C) No. 3394 of 1992 was seen as a desperate gamble. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not record findings that the order in favor of Prakash Rani was legal and valid or that the respondents' case was similar in material respects.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and directing the respondents to pay the costs of the appellants, assessed at Rs. 10,000. The Court emphasized that the High Court erred in allowing the writ petition based on an alleged discriminatory treatment without proper investigation and findings.

---