TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the impugned notices of re-entry and demolition infringed the freedom of the press and were amenable to challenge under Article 32 of the Constitution; (ii) whether the Lieutenant Governor had any authority in relation to the lease and the property of the Union in Delhi; (iii) whether the construction of the new building with an increased FAR of 360 and a double basement violated the Master Plan, the Zonal Development Plan, the lease conditions, or the municipal bye-laws; and (iv) whether the notice of re-entry and the demolition notice were mala fide and invalid, and whether the Union of India was bound by the permission earlier granted.
Issue: (i) whether the impugned notices of re-entry and demolition infringed the freedom of the press and were amenable to challenge under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Analysis: The notices were directed at the premises that housed the printing and publication of a newspaper and had a direct and immediate impact on its functioning. The right to freedom of speech and expression includes the freedom of the press, and a State action that effectively threatens the continued publication of a newspaper falls within Article 19(1)(a). The Court treated the challenge as maintainable under Article 32, the action being alleged to operate as a direct restraint on press freedom and not merely as an ordinary contractual dispute.
Conclusion: The challenge was maintainable, and the impugned notices were capable of being tested as violations of fundamental rights.
Issue: (ii) whether the Lieutenant Governor had any authority in relation to the lease and the property of the Union in Delhi.
Analysis: The constitutional and statutory scheme showed that after the transfer of the Land and Development Office to the Ministry of Works and Housing, and in the absence of any specific entrustment under Article 239(1), the Lieutenant Governor had no independent power to administer the lease or the property of the Union. The office of Chief Commissioner could not simply be equated with the later office of Lieutenant Governor so as to confer unexpressed contractual authority in relation to nazul land. The executive authority over the lease and its enforcement lay with the Union acting through the Ministry and the authorised officers.
Conclusion: The Lieutenant Governor had no authority to assume control over the lease or to act as the lessor's delegate in this matter.
Issue: (iii) whether the construction of the new building with an increased FAR of 360 and a double basement violated the Master Plan, the Zonal Development Plan, the lease conditions, or the municipal bye-laws.
Analysis: The Master Plan did not prescribe an FAR for the press enclave on Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, and the Zonal Development Plan for the D-II area treated Mathura Road commercial area as one of the commercial areas for which an FAR of 400 was contemplated. The Court held that the press area was not part of the category of already built-up commercial areas in the walled city to which the ceiling of 300 applied. The building was sanctioned through the planning authorities, the basement exclusion was accepted in the planning permissions, and the working platform and subterranean arrangements were treated as incidental to the functioning of the printing press. On that basis, the construction was not found to be in breach of the planning regime or the lease conditions.
Conclusion: The construction with FAR 360 and the double basement did not constitute a breach of the Master Plan, the Zonal Development Plan, or the lease covenants relied upon by the respondents.
Issue: (iv) whether the notice of re-entry and the demolition notice were mala fide and invalid, and whether the Union of India was bound by the permission earlier granted.
Analysis: The sequence of events, the haste with which the matter was set in motion, the role played by the Lieutenant Governor, and the failure of the respondents to give a convincing denial of the allegations of bias supported the inference that the action was taken for an extraneous purpose. The permission granted earlier by the competent Ministry had been acted upon by the petitioners to their detriment, and the successor administration could not repudiate that permission after the petitioners had altered their position. The impugned notices were therefore not bona fide administrative steps but were vitiated by mala fides and by the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Conclusion: The notice of re-entry and the demolition notice were invalid, and the Union of India was bound by the earlier permission granted and acted upon.
Final Conclusion: The Court quashed the impugned notices, held that the construction was sanctioned and not in breach of the relevant planning or lease conditions, and directed the respondents to refrain from acting on the threatened re-entry or demolition while leaving any claim for monetary recovery to be worked out in appropriate proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: State action that directly and immediately threatens the functioning of a newspaper may be challenged under Article 32 as an infringement of press freedom, and where a competent public authority has granted permission and the recipient has altered its position on that basis, the Government cannot later repudiate the permission by invoking an ultra vires or mala fide administrative course unsupported by the governing planning regime.
TaxTMI 
