0

Private agreements cannot be enforced over public policy in slum rehabilitation schemes: Supreme Court

Blog, blog , , ,

Case title: Sayunkta Sangarsh Samiti & Anr. Vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Case no.: Civil Appeal No. 1359 Of 2023

Decided on: 15.12.2023

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The dispute arose when a developer attempted to avoid legal requirements by excluding the SRA from a lawsuit and entering into a private agreement with a minority resident group for specific towers. This private agreement, deemed invalid by the SRA, attempted to circumvent the established lottery-based system for flat allocation.

The appellants before this Court have challenged the High Court of Judicature, Bombay’s order dated 22.10.2021, which dismissed the appellants’ Writ Petition. The petition sought to overturn respondent No. 2’s order, issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant’s argued that once the Developer and the appellant society reached an agreement under the MOU, allotments of flats in towers D, E, and F should have been made accordingly, with only appellant society members receiving these flats.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The Court noted that the Lower Parel project was hampered by an internal conflict between the majority Federation in charge of it and a dissenting minority group, Sayunkta Sangharsh Samiti. It was determined that the developer had broken the law when they entered into a private agreement with SSS for a specific tower development and excluded the SRA from a lawsuit. This private agreement went against the SRA’s established lottery-based allocation system, which Circular mandated. In the end, the Court affirmed the SRA’s determination to equitably distribute apartments to all qualified inhabitants, stressing the importance of openness, due process, and broad agreement in slum rehabilitation initiatives.

It held that SRA must operate in accordance with its own policies and guidelines, refraining from granting contractual or private interests the upper hand over public policy, particularly when it comes to welfare-based policies.

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read the judgement

0

Madras High Court Says when a person joins Government service he has no choice of posting. He is at the disposal of the Government.

blog, Blog , , ,

TITLE: P. Selvan Vs. T.N. Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd.

Decided On: September 11, 2023.

W.P.No.17896 of 2023 and W.M.P.No.17016 of 2023.

CORAM:  Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.  Sathish Kumar.

Facts:

The Petitioner was appointed as Contract Labourer in the Respondents Board and was absorbed as Mazdoor (Trainee) during the year 2012 and thereafter appointed as Mazdoor during the year 2014. In the year 2016 he was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and posted in Mecheri O & M Section. After completion of three year he was transferred to Kunjandaiyur O & M Section as Assistant Engineer, where he joined on 28.08.2020. However, he has been transferred on 07.08.2021 to North Chennai. He has challenged the said transfer order in W.P.No.26329 of 2021. This Court has granted interim order on 13.12.2021. Since the petitioner has filed the writ petition against his superiors, they have vengeance against him. The Petitioner, in fact had given a complaint to the Vigilance Department alleging corrupt practices of superior officers. Therefore, the superior officers continued to have a grudge against the Petitioner. Therefore, once again he was served with an transfer order dated 24.06.2022. The said transfer order dated 24.06.2022 was cancelled on 30.06.2022. From 01.07.2022 the petitioner is continuously working in Kunjandaiyur O & M Section. The Petitioner has been once again transferred to North Chennai Thermal Power Station on 02.05.2023. The contention that the entire transfer is punitive with motive.

Legal Analysis and Decision:

The very allegation of the Petitioner is that he has been transferred since he has made complaint against the superior officer. On perusal of the same, this Court also directed the Vigilance Department to file a status report. The Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Salem filed a status report, which clearly reveals the fact that the allegation made by the Petitioner has not been established in the vigilance side enquiry. This fact itself clearly indicate that only in order to continue in the same post the Petitioner is adopting these type of tactics by giving a false complaint against the superior officers. Though in the order it is stated as ‘administrative reasons’ it cannot beheld to be a punitive one. The transfer in the nature of the allegation against the petitioner is quite in fact, warranted. The petitioner, as a matter of right cannot continue in the same post. Once the petitioner is entered into the Government service he has no choice of posting. He is at the disposal of the Government. The competent authority has a power to decide the transfer based on various other circumstances, even to avoid untoward incidents or untoward hardship for smooth functioning of the office. When the officer in the rank of Additional Director General of Police (Vigilance) after thorough enquiry has recommended certain measures to avoid untoward incident and the competent authority merely transfer the person against whom such severe allegations are pending, cannot be said that such transfer is always punitive with motive. Such transfers are warranted for effective administration. The Judges said they do not find any merits in the Writ Petition. The judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is not relevant to the facts of the present writ petition.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the petitioner, as a matter of right cannot continue in the same post. Once the petitioner is entered into the Government service he has no choice of posting. He is at the disposal of the Government. The competent authority has a power to decide the transfer based on various other circumstances, even to avoid untoward incidents or untoward hardship for smooth functioning of the office.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR.

Click here to view Judgement

 

0

T.N. Civil Supplies Corporation Should release the consequential benefits with penal interest — Madras High Court.

Blog , , ,

Case Title:

V.Jotheeswari   … Petitioner
         Vs.

TamilNaduCivil Supplies Corporation and Anrs.    …Respondents

Date of Decision:

                             Reserved on:07.06.2023

                           Delivered on: 19.06.2023

Coram:  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

Citation:

           W.P.No.26113 of 2017 & W.M.P.Nos.27738 and 27739 of 2017

Introduction:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the proceedings AD 5/86045/14 dated 21.01.2016 of the 1st respondent along with the proceedings No.AD1/27580/2017 dated 08.08.2017 of the 2nd respondent and the consequential recovery proceedings Na.Ka.E1/4203/2015 dated 06.03.2017 of the 3rd respondent, quash all the three orders and consequently direct respondents to release the consequential benefits with penal interest.

Facts:

The  Petitioner in the affidavit in support of her Writ Petition are that she was holding the post of Deputy Manager (Movement) with the respondent Corporation and she reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2015. A special audit was ordered into the storage and movement of rice from 11.11.2014 to 17.11.2014 and the audit report has given a finding of irregularity in Storage and Movement of rice resulting in loss of Rs.35,67,379/-. According to the Writ Petitioner, the 4th respondent was the Senior Regional Manager and Head of the Chennai North Region and one S.Manimozhi was the Manager
(Storage and Movement) and that the petitioner was subordinate to these two persons. The audit report, besides suggesting action against the Writ Petitioner also suggested action to be taken various other employees responsible for the loss. However, excepting the 4th respondent, Tmt. S.Nirmala and the petitioner all others were let off and charges were framed by the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 03.03.2015. Charges against both the two persons were identical, accusing all responsible for heavy loss to the Corporation.

Issues:

Whether the disciplinary authority is entitled to take a different view from the one taken by the enquiry officer?

Does the principles of natural justice would certainly require that the
disciplinary authority to afford a fair opportunity to the Petitioner?

Legal Analysis:

Learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through various
charges and also the grounds raised in support of the Writ Petition and made his elaborate submissions with regard to each of the grounds, especially the right of the 1st respondent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings thereby the very charge memo itself being vitiated as one without jurisdiction.

The petitioner was only in charge of “Movement” and not “Storage and Movement” and when the enquiry officer had rightly found the main charge of monetary loss having been caused to the respondent Corporation in favour of the petitioner by holding that the said charge is not proved.

The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent
Corporation that Civil suit has already been filed and therefore all these issues can be thrashed out in the Civil suit and that the Writ Petition should not be entertained does not merit any consideration.

The very claim made in the suit is only a consequential action of the respondent Corporation in furtherance of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent. If the impugned order itself is bad in the eye of law, the very cause of action for filing of the Civil Suit itself vanishes and therefore the Writ Petition, is certainly maintainable as prayed and the pendency of the Civil Suit is no way a bar for this Court entertaining the Writ Petition and dispose of the same on
merits.

Judgement:

The Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for records in AD 5/86045/14 dated 21.01.2016 of the 1st respondent along with the proceedings No.AD1/27580/2017 dated 08.08.2017 on the file of the 2nd respondent and the consequential recovery proceedings Na.Ka.E1/4203/2015 dated 06.03.2017 on the file of the 3rd respondent, and to quash all the three orders and consequently direct respondents to release the consequential benefits with penal interest.

Conclusion:

The appellate authority should consider the charges, discuss the
explanation offered by the delinquent officer or employee concerned one assess the same independently before concurring or dissenting with the findings of disciplinary authority. Merely endorsing the findings of the disciplinary authority as confirmed is certainly deplorable, especially in a case where the disciplinary authority has differed with the findings of the enquiry officer. The Court interpreted in right way and  ordered the Civil Supplies to release the consequential benefits with penal interest.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY JANGAM SHASHIDHAR

Click here to view Judgement