LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Thursday, July 28, 2011

except in exceptional cases having sufficient evidence, no court should order go beyond the scope of the case =It is not in dispute that the only question before the learned single Judge was related to the demand notice issued by the Board. No doubt, the petitioner therein has made certain statements against the officials of the Board, however, there is no specific complaint either by the writ petitioner or anyone pointing mismanagement in the affairs of the Board. If there is any specific complaint giving all the details, undoubtedly, the Court can forward it to the forum concerned for investigation and further action pursuant to the outcome of the same. Merely on the basis of certain observations in the orders of the High Court in other matters which were either set aside or modified or not applicable to the case on hand, the learned single Judge was not justified in issuing directions for Vigilance inquiry. The direction also proceeds as if that the officials of the Board benefited with the huge amount without basing reliable and acceptable materials. Normally, the 11


                                                            REPORTABLE


                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5779  OF 2008




Bihar State Housing Board & Ors.                           .... Appellant (s)



             Versus



Asha Lata Verma                                         .... Respondent(s)





                            J U D G M E N T




P. Sathasivam, J.


1)    This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   final   judgment   and



order   dated   02.07.2008   passed   by   the   High   Court   of



Judicature   at   Patna   in   L.P.A.   No.   211   of   2008   whereby   the



Division Bench of the High Court declined to interfere with the



order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the learned single Judge of



the   High   Court   in   CWJC   No.   11753   of   2007   and   disposed   of



the appeal filed by the appellants herein.





2)    Brief facts:




                                                                            1


(a)    In   1972,   the   Bihar   State   Housing   Board   (hereinafter



referred to as "the Board") floated a Scheme for construction of



Flats   for   Middle   Income   Group   (in   short   "MIG")   at   Hanuman



Nagar, Patna.       Ram Chandra Prasad   Verma (since expired)



-the   husband   of   the   respondent   submitted   his   application.



Subsequently,   on   demand   being   made,   on   28.09.1978,   he



deposited   a   sum   of   Rs.6500/-   for   allotment   of   a   MIG



flat/house.  The allotment fructified in his favour and MIG Flat



No.   171,   Hanuman   Nagar,   Patna   was   allotted   to   him   vide



Board's Order No. 7273 dated 23.09.1981.   After execution of



hire-purchase   agreement,  the   possession   was   handed   over   to



him   on   28.11.1981.     At   that   time,   the   total   cost   of   the   flat



determined by the Board was Rs.66,382/-.  The entire amount



was paid to the Board within the time prescribed.



(b)     On 25.03.1991, the husband of the respondent died and



in   the   year   1992,   she   sought   for   transfer   of   the   Flat   in   her



name.  The flat was transferred in the name of the respondent



after   furnishing   the   details   of   payment   and   other   required



documents   to   the   Board   vide   letter   No.   1459   dated



05.05.1998.




                                                                                 2


(c)    Later   on,   the   respondent   decided   to   transfer   the   flat   in



favour   of   her   daughter-in-law,   Ms.   Meera   Verma   and   sought



transfer of the same.  At this time, the Board raised a demand



of Rs. 3,64,419/- towards outstanding dues against the flat in



question   vide   Letter   No.   2169   dated   29.06.2006,   asking   the



respondent to deposit the same by 31.07.2006.



(d)    Against the said demand notice, the respondent filed writ



petition   bearing   CWJC   No.   11753   of   2007   before   the   High



Court of Patna for quashing the same on the ground that the



payment   of   the   flat   had   already   been   made   in   144   equal



instalments and that the Board is not justified in raising such



demand and not entitled to re-determination/re-fixation of the



price after delivery of possession.  The learned single Judge, by



order dated 07.02.2008, allowed the writ petition and quashed



the demand notice and directed the Board to grant permission



for transfer of the flat in favour of Ms. Meera Verma, daughter-



in-law of the respondent herein.  The learned single Judge also



directed  the  Additional   Director  General  of  Vigilance,   State  of



Bihar to institute a case against the Board and to enquire into



the activities of the officials involved in the process of decision




                                                                              3


making   and   also   to   initiate   enquiry   into   the   assets   and



properties of such officials of the Board.



(e)    Against   the   said   order   of   the   learned   single   Judge,   the



Board   filed   appeal   being   L.P.A.   No.   211   of   2008   before   the



Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court.     The   Division   Bench,   by



impugned   order   dated   02.07.2008,   declined   to   interfere   with



the  order  passed  by  the  learned single  Judge  disposed   of  the



appeal filed by the appellants herein.   Aggrieved by the same,



the Board preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition



before this Court.




3)     Heard   Mr.   S.   Chandra   Shekhar,   learned   counsel   for   the



appellants-Board and Mr. Praneet Ranjan, learned counsel for



the respondent.



 4)    Since   the   learned   single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   while



allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent expressed his



anguish over the manner in which the Board and its officials



are   conducting   its   affairs,   issued   certain   directions   for



Vigilance   inquiry,   the   Board   being   aggrieved   by   the   said



directions   filed   an   appeal   before   the   Division   Bench.   The





                                                                             4


Division   Bench,   by   impugned   order   dated   02.07.2008,   after



observing   that   since   the   Vigilance   Department   has   already



started preliminary inquiry, declined to interfere with the order



passed by the learned single Judge.   The Board is very much



aggrieved   by   the   directions   of   the   learned   single   Judge



directing   Additional   Director   General   of   Vigilance,   State   of



Bihar to institute a case against the Board and to enquire into



the   activities   of   all   persons   who   are   involved   in   the   decision



making   process   as   well   as   who   have   been   responsible   in



creating   false   accounts   and   raising   false   demands   in   relation



to the writ petitioner, namely, Asha Lata Verma.   In the same



order,   the   learned   single   Judge   also   directed   that   an   inquiry



into the assets and properties of such officials of the Board be



carried out to see whether they have been benefited at the cost



of innocent citizens.



5)    Before   considering   the   directions   of   the   learned   single



Judge   asking   the   Additional   Director   General   of   Vigilance,



State of Bihar to enquire into the conduct of the officials of the



Board,   we   have   to   see   the   grievance   of   the   respondent.     The





                                                                               5


grievance of the respondent is that even though entire money



for MIG flat bought by her husband in the year 1981 was paid



yet the officials of the Board acting in most arbitrary manner



have   raised   huge   demand.     By   various   orders   of   the   High



Court,   ultimately   the   Board   transferred   the   ownership   of   the



flat in question in favour of daughter-in-law of the respondent.



Though   the   counsel   appearing   for   the   Board   has   stated   that



the Board was justified in demanding an additional amount, in



the   absence   of   such   details   and   in   view   of   the   fact   that   now



the Board has transferred the title of the flat in favour of the



daughter-in-law   of   the   respondent,   as   requested,   we   are   not



inclined to go into the claim of the Board.



6)     Let   us   consider   the   directions   issued   by   the   learned



single   Judge   in   the   foregoing   paragraphs.   The   learned   single



Judge having noticed that the cost of the flat as determined by



the   Board   was   paid   by   the   allotee,   after   the   death   of   the



original   allottee,   his   wife   -   respondent   herein   applied   for



transferring   the   flat   in   her   name,   at   this   stage,   the   Board



officials   required   her   to   furnish   proof   of   payments   and   other



documents   which   were   duly   furnished   by   her,   thereafter



                                                                                 6


permission   was   granted   for   transfer   of   the   flat   in   her   name,



ultimately,   on   a   request   being   made   by   the   respondent   for



transferring  the  said  flat  in the  name of  her   daughter-in-law,



the officials of the Board calculated  huge amount showing as



outstanding   and   with   this   background,   the   learned   single



Judge   examined   the   claim   of   the   writ   petitioner   and



considered the   stand  of  the   Board.     It is   the   grievance  of  the



Board   that   whether   in   a   writ   proceeding   where   the   writ



petitioner challenged the demand notice issued by the Board,



the writ Court could have gone beyond the relief sought by the



petitioner and ordered an inquiry by the Vigilance Department



after registering FIR?  It is also the grievance of the Board that



whether   in   a  writ   proceeding,   the   learned   single   Judge   could



have   ordered   registration   of   FIR   without   there   being   an



allegation of any offence committed by anyone and whether in



the absence of any specific allegation, the learned single Judge



is justified in ordering a roving inquiry?





                                                                             7


7)     The learned single Judge took note of many findings and



observations of the  High Court  in several similar  cases.   It is



important to mention here that the learned single Judge while



passing   the   order   dated   07.02.2008   placed   reliance   on   the



following   judgments,   viz.,  Smt.   Meera   Mishra  vs.  State   of


Bihar  2001   (3)   PLJR   809,  Sanjeev   Kumar   Singh  vs.


Managing   Director  2003   (2)   PLJR   513   and  Sita   Devi  vs.


Bihar   State   Housing   Board  2007   (1)   PLJR   246.     It   was


pointed   out   that   these   matters   were   either   set   aside   or



modified   or   not   applicable   to   the   case   on   hand.    In   those



observations,   the   High   Court   has   indicted   the   Board   for   its



mismanaged   affairs   and   the   manner   in   which   it   was



conducting   its   functioning.                 Heavily   relying   on   those



observations and findings, the learned  single Judge held that



the   demand   notice   was   totally   unjustified   and,   therefore,   it



was quashed and the Board was directed to issue permission



to   the   writ   petitioner   for   transfer   of   the   flat   in   favour   of   her



daughter-in-law.  Having noticed the conduct of the Board, the



learned   single   Judge   felt   that   its   functionaries   should   be



subjected   to   an   investigation   by   the   State   Vigilance   and




                                                                                     8


accordingly   a   direction   was   issued   to   the   Additional   Director



General of Vigilance, State of Bihar to institute a case against



the   Board   and   inquire   into   the   activities   of   all   persons   who



were   involved   in   the   decision   making   process   as   well   as   who



have   been   responsible   in   creating   false   accounts   and   raising



false   demands.     The   learned   single   Judge   also   directed   to



enquire  into  the   assets  and properties   of  such  officials   of  the



Board.



8)     It   is   seen   from   the   additional   documents   filed   by   the



Board that based on the direction of the learned single Judge,



Additional Director General Vigilance had sought opinion from



the   Advocate   General.     By   letter   dated   19.07.2008,   after



verifying   the   relief   sought   for   by   the   writ   petitioner   and   after



analyzing   the   directions   of   the   learned   single   Judge   and   the



materials   placed   by   the   investigation   team,   the   Advocate



General has opined that the materials, which are collected so



far   during   preliminary   inquiry   and   placed   on   record   do   not



constitute any prima facie criminal offence against the officials



of   the   Board   so   as   to   warrant   institution   of   a   regular   case.



The said report was placed before the learned single Judge by



                                                                                 9


the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, on 03.05.2010.   After



going through the report of the Vigilance Department and the



opinion   of   the   Advocate   General,   the   learned   single   Judge



directed the Vigilance Department to spend more time on the



investigation   and   file   a   report   on   the   issue   since   the   earlier



report was not up to the expectation of the Court.



9)    It is not in dispute that even as early as on 07.02.2008,



the   learned   single   Judge   disposed   of   the   writ   petition   by



allowing   the   same   and   granted   relief   to   the   respondent   and



ordered   for   Vigilance   inquiry   against   the   Board   and   its



officials.  Thereafter, even though the L.P.A. filed by the Board



against   the   order   of   the   learned   single   Judge   was   also



disposed   of   by   the   Division   Bench,   it   is   not   clear   and



understandable   how   the   matter   was   heard   by   the   learned



single Judge then and there. Even after perusing the report of



the Vigilance Department based on the opinion of the Advocate



General,   the   learned   single   Judge   passed   further   order   on



03.05.2010   and   again   directed   the   Vigilance   Department   to



submit   further   report.     It   is   the   grievance   of   the   Board   that



inasmuch   as   the   writ   petitioner   has   secured   an   appropriate



                                                                               10


relief   and   in   the   absence   of   any   specific   claim/complaint



furnished  with required  details, the learned  single Judge was



not   justified   in   directing   the   Vigilance   Department   for   roving



inquiry into the affairs of the Board.



10)    It   is   not   in   dispute   that   the   only   question   before   the



learned single Judge was related to the demand notice issued



by   the   Board.     No   doubt,   the   petitioner   therein   has   made



certain statements against the officials of the Board, however,



there   is   no   specific   complaint   either   by   the   writ   petitioner   or



anyone pointing mismanagement in the affairs of the Board.  If



there   is   any   specific   complaint   giving   all   the   details,



undoubtedly, the Court can forward it to the forum concerned



for investigation and further action pursuant to the outcome of



the same.   Merely  on the basis  of  certain  observations  in the



orders   of   the   High   Court   in   other   matters   which   were   either



set aside or modified or not applicable to the case on hand, the



learned single Judge was not justified in issuing directions for



Vigilance   inquiry.     The   direction   also   proceeds   as   if   that   the



officials of the Board benefited with the huge amount without



basing   reliable   and   acceptable   materials.     Normally,   the




                                                                                11


function of the Court is to sort out the dispute raised and only



in   exceptional   cases   that   too   when   adequate   materials   are



there such inquiry can be ordered but not on the basis of the



general information, assumption or presumption.   Apart from



this,   after   disposal   of   the   writ   petition   as   early   as   on



07.02.2008,   how   the   learned   single   Judge   assumed



jurisdiction and issued several directions in the matter.




11)  In the  light  of  the   above  discussion,  we  are  satisfied  that



the   direction   relating   to   inquiry   by   the   Vigilance   Department



and   subsequent   orders   and   directions   by   the   learned   single



Judge cannot be sustained.  While confirming the order of the



learned   single   Judge   relating   to   the   relief   granted   to   the



respondent,   all   other   directions   relating   to   the   Board   and   its



officials are set aside.  However, it is made clear that if there is



any   specific   complaint   with   facts   and   figures   against   any   of



the officer of the Board, it is for the person concerned to move



the appropriate prosecuting agency and if any such complaint



is made, the agency is free to proceed in accordance with law.





                                                                             12


12)  The civil appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above.



There shall be no order as to costs.





                                 ..........................................J.

                                      (P. SATHASIVAM)




                                ..........................................J.

                                   (H.L. GOKHALE)


NEW DELHI;

JULY 28, 2011.  

 





                                                             13