2004 (11) TMI 628 - SC - Indian Laws

Contract Breach Confirmed: Timely Performance Matters, Damages Awarded for Failure to Deliver Goods as Agreed

Tarak Singh and Ors. Versus Jyoti Basu and Ors.

The SC ruled in favor of the plaintiff, affirming that the defendant breached a contractual obligation by failing to deliver specified goods within the ... - 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court in this judgment include:- Whether the allotment of government land under the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister, specifically to Justice B.P. Banerjee, was unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, whimsical, capricious, motivated by mala fide intent, or clandestine in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.- Whether there existed a conflict of interest or nexus between the judicial orders passed by Justice Banerjee in a writ petition concerning allotment of land in Salt Lake City and the subsequent allotment of a plot to him from the Chief Minister's discretionary quota.- Whether the conduct of Justice Banerjee in continuing to hear the writ petition while simultaneously seeking allotment of land from the Chief Minister amounted to misuse of judicial office and breach of judicial discipline.- Whether the allotment order dated 24.7.1987 and the formal allotment dated 16.10.1987 should be quashed on grounds of impropriety and breach of constitutional principles.- The appropriate remedy concerning the land and constructed property allotted to Justice Banerjee, including valuation and possession.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Legality and constitutionality of allotment of government land under Chief Minister's discretionary quotaThe Court examined the constitutional framework, particularly Article 14, which mandates equality before law and prohibits arbitrary state action. The allotment of government land from the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister was challenged as arbitrary and violative of this principle.The Court scrutinized the procedure and policy behind such allotments and found that the allotment to Justice Banerjee was made clandestinely and without transparency. The allotment was not part of any publicly known or uniform policy but appeared to be a special favor, raising questions of arbitrariness and discrimination.The Court also noted that while allotments to other judges had occurred, the petitioner failed to produce evidence of similar compromise of judicial duty by others, and that mere existence of similar allotments did not justify or legalize the impugned allotment.Issue 2: Conflict of interest and nexus between judicial orders and allotmentThe Court analyzed the timeline and sequence of events in detail. Justice Banerjee was hearing writ petitions concerning allotment of land in Salt Lake City, including injunctions restraining further allotments. On the very day he was to hear the matter (20.6.1986), he applied to the Chief Minister for allotment of a plot.Subsequently, an interim order dated 8.6.1987 restrained further allotments, but was varied on 11.6.1987 to allow the Chief Minister to allot land at his discretion. Notably, on 16.7.1987, Justice Banerjee wrote a letter to the Chief Minister requesting allotment of a plot, while the writ petition was still pending before him. The Chief Minister passed an order allotting the plot on 24.7.1987, and the matter was still listed before Justice Banerjee on that date and thereafter.The Court rejected the defense that the concurrence of judicial orders and allotment was mere coincidence, finding instead an 'unholy nexus' between the exercise of judicial power and personal interest.Issue 3: Misuse of judicial office and breach of judicial disciplineThe Court emphasized the principle that judicial discipline is self-discipline and that integrity is the hallmark of judicial conduct. It underscored the unique position of the judiciary as the last hope for the people and the critical importance of maintaining public confidence in the justice delivery system.By continuing to hear the writ petition while simultaneously pursuing personal allotment of land from the Chief Minister's discretionary quota, Justice Banerjee compromised his judicial duty. The Court held that this conduct amounted to misuse of judicial function as a 'liveries to obtain personal interest,' thereby betraying public trust.The Court also noted the falsehood in Justice Banerjee's affidavits denying that the writ petition was kept part-heard, contrary to the High Court's records, which further undermined his credibility.Issue 4: Quashing of allotment orders and vesting of property in governmentGiven the findings of arbitrariness, mala fide exercise of power, and breach of judicial discipline, the Court quashed the Chief Minister's order dated 24.7.1987 and the formal allotment dated 16.10.1987 in favor of Justice Banerjee. The plot was ordered to stand vested in the Government.Issue 5: Remedy regarding constructed property and compensationThe Court directed the Government to appoint a valuer to assess the cost of construction (excluding the land cost) at the prevailing rates at the time of construction and offer that amount to Justice Banerjee. The Government was to take over the building with a one-year period allowed for vacation of possession upon an undertaking by Justice Banerjee and his family.Alternatively, if Justice Banerjee preferred, the property could be auctioned publicly with separate bids for land and building, with reserve prices fixed by the Government valuer. The proceeds would be paid to Justice Banerjee, who would then be required to hand over possession to the purchaser. The entire process was to be completed within six months, with the Chief Secretary reporting compliance.The Court also clarified that Justice Banerjee or his relatives would not be allowed to participate in the auction.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'The facts speak volumes that the learned Judge has misused his judicial function as liveries to obtain personal interest is clearly discernable.''There is undoubtedly an unholy nexus in between the passing of the judicial order and granting order of allotment.''Judicial discipline is self discipline. The responsibility is self responsibility. Judicial discipline is an inbuilt mechanism inherent in the system itself.''Because of the power he wields, a Judge is being judged with more stricter than others. Integrity is the hall-mark of judicial discipline, apart from others.''With due respect to the learned Judge, Justice B.P. Banerjee, he has mis-used his divine judicial duty as liveries to accomplish his personal ends. He has betrayed the trust reposed in him by the people.''It is now well-settled principle of law that in such cases the latter (public interest) must prevail over the former (private interest).'The Court's final determinations were:- The allotment of land to Justice Banerjee was unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, and motivated by mala fide intent, violating Article 14.- The conduct of Justice Banerjee in hearing the writ petition while seeking and obtaining allotment from the Chief Minister's discretionary quota constituted misuse of judicial office and breach of judicial discipline.- The allotment order and formal allotment were quashed, and the land vested in the Government.- Appropriate directions were issued for valuation, compensation, and recovery of possession of the constructed property.- The writ petition was allowed against Justice Banerjee but dismissed against other respondents, with clarification that dismissal against others should not be construed as approval of the discretionary allotment policy.