2003 (9) TMI 803 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Reinstates Single Judge's Order, Dismisses Writ Petition; No Article 14 Violation Found in Public Project.

5 M and T Consultants, Secunderabad Versus S.Y. Nawab and Ors.

The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the Division Bench's decision, and reinstated the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition. The Court ... Validity of the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to the appellant for erecting advertisement/street signs - violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India - Compliance with statutory formalities and regulations under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act - HELD THAT:- The fact that no other private advertising agencies, including the writ petitioner could offer to undertake such a venture in the other available areas when their participation was sought for belies the tall claims of the writ petitioner now made, after finding the project to have become successful and apparently fruitful - more perhaps than it could have been thought of, initially by everyone. Perhaps irked by this only the interests of the writ petitioner seem to have gained momentum, to try in desperateness for the 'Shylock's pound of flesh', to ruin the vary project, unmindful of any concern for the Corporation, public good and the appellant. It is by now well settled that non-floating of tenders or absence of public auction or invitation alone is no sufficient reason to castigate the move or an action of a public authority as either arbitrary or unreasonable or amounted to malafide or improper exercise or improper abuse of power by the authority concerned. Courts have always leaned in favour of sufficient latitude being left with the authorities to adopt its own techniques of management of projects with concomitant economic expediencies depending upon the exigencies of a situation guided by appropriate financial policy in the best interests of the authority motivated by public interest, as well in undertaking sThe provisions relating to Section 420/421 would also have relevance only when any such installations are to be made for the benefit/utility of private person/licensee, who executes it and not to a peculiar case like the one wherein the installations are such which are to be normally made and maintained by the Corporation for public good, but instead being permitted to be made on its behalf and at its behest by a private property for the use and benefit of public at large, which ultimately have to be left as the property of the Corporation only, and that too when executed on a self-financing basis. The Commissioner or other, authorities of the Corporation, who seem to have undertaken this at a point of time when there is no concrete scheme/project or sufficient funds with the Corporation, appear to have embarked upon this venture in good faith, keeping in view not only the public good but also in an earnest endeavour to secure such a novel project executed without any financial commitments or expenditure whatsoever either for the installations or subsequent upkeep and maintenance for at least 15 years. Merely because as an ultimate outcome in the long range, the appellant is able to make some more profit than what was envisaged itself could not render the exercise undertaken or scheme executed vulnerable for being challenged to be either as one in improper abuse of powers or by means of any reprehensible/condemnable conduct, calling for interference in the hands of Court of Law ventures. The Division Bench, except cataloguing the catena of decisions, has not chosen to objectively consider the extent of their applicability, relevance or otherwise of the principle befitting the merits of the peculiar of the case. The case on hand does not constitute or at any rate can by no means said to be the outcome of any unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of power so as to warrant interference under. Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appeal is allowed, the order of the Division Bench is set aside and the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed before the High Court shall stand restored. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to the appellant for erecting advertisement/street signs.2. Allegations of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.3. Compliance with statutory formalities and regulations under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act.4. Public interest and the nature of the writ petition as Public Interest Litigation (PIL).Summary:Legality of Permission:The appellant was granted permission by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to erect street signs and direction boards in Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, finding no illegality in the transaction and noting that the assignment was not a grant of largesse. The Division Bench, however, directed the termination of the contract and a fresh exercise for the purpose.Allegations of Arbitrariness:The writ petitioner alleged that the permission granted to the appellant was arbitrary, unjust, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Division Bench initially recorded the willingness of the parties to award the contract to the writ appellant on similar terms but later allowed the appeal, directing termination of the contract.Compliance with Statutory Formalities:The appellant's project was undertaken as a pilot project due to the Corporation's financial constraints. The Corporation issued a press notification inviting private advertisers for similar work in other areas. The writ petitioner did not attend the meeting convened for this purpose and later made vague claims without concrete proposals. The Division Bench's order was challenged on the grounds that the project did not involve any financial commitment from the Corporation and was executed on a self-financing basis.Public Interest and Nature of PIL:The Supreme Court observed that the writ petition was not a genuine public interest litigation but was aimed at furthering the writ petitioner's own interests. The Court noted that the project undertaken by the appellant was in furtherance of public interest and for the larger public good. The Division Bench's interference was deemed a grave error, and the order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition was restored.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's order, and restored the Single Judge's order dismissing the writ petition. The Court emphasized that non-floating of tenders or absence of public auction alone is not sufficient to castigate the action of a public authority as arbitrary or unreasonable. The project was undertaken in good faith, keeping in view public good and without any financial commitments or expenditure to the Corporation.