Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 2 docs
Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti ... vs State Of U.P And Ors on 13 August, 1990
Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 14 November, 1988
Citedby 6 docs - [View All]
(2) Chn 909 : Nikhil Ch. Das & Ors vs State Of on 18 March, 2010
Rashi Metals Pvt. Ltd. vs West Bengal State Electricity ... on 14 July, 2005
Sri Parimal And Anr. vs State And Ors. on 18 February, 2000
Ganga Construction Company vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 5 December, 2001
Bishun Deo Singh vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 29 August, 2002

User Queries
Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
T.N. Rugmani And Another vs C. Achutha Menon And Ors on 20 December, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1991 AIR 983, 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 638
Author: R Sahai
Bench: Sahai, R.M. (J)





 1991 AIR  983		  1990 SCR  Supl. (3) 638
 1991 SCC  Supl.  (1) 520 JT 1991 (1)	265
 1990 SCALE  (2)1317

    Town   Planning  Act/Town  Planning--Sections   8,	 10,
15/Rules  32  (a) and 33(a) (b)--Trichur  Urban	 Development
Authority--Sanction for construction of building----Validity

  Municipal  Council  of  Trichur  framed  certain  schemes,
including the West Road Scheme in 1976 and thus intended  to
acquire	 the lands in question but since the scheme was	 not
published for two years, as required by law, it lapsed, with
the  result the lands sought to be acquired  stood  released
from  acquisition. In 1981 the State Government	 constituted
TUDA under Town Planning Act but even this body did not take
any  step till June 1983. The owners of the land  were	thus
free  to  use their lands subject to  any  restriction,	 for
instance  sanction of maps etc. by Municipal  Council.	Even
though	the  lands  in question did not	 form  part  of	 any
plan/scheme.  The owners thereof were subjected to  a  great
deal of harassment whenever anyone of them approached  these
authorities, M.C. and TUDA for permission to construct or to
approve the map. This led these owners to approach the State
Government  against  unreasonable attitude  of	these  local
authorities and the Government after as certaining from	 the
Town Planner that no scheme was pending directed the author-
ities  concerned to sanction plan and  permit  construction.
Such  an order in respect of survey Nos. 887 and 888,  owned
by  Unnikrishnan  was passed in 1982. In March	1983,  TUDA,
took a decision to notify that West Road Development  Scheme
of 1976 but the Government stayed it. Thereupon Unnikrishnan
M.B. Menon filed an application before the Municipal  Corpo-
ration for permission to build on the disputed land, a	shop
building. It was sanctioned by the Municipal Council subject
to its approval by the TUDA which in turn informed that	 the
application  would be considered after notification  of	 the
scheme. The State Government when informed however, took the
view  that  it would be unfair to deny the  petitioners	 the
permission applied for as it was the fault of the  authority
not to have taken prompt action to get the necessary records
and notify the scheme and consequently, the State Government
directed  the authority to accord its approval to the  plans
submitted by the petitioners. Some negotiations between	 the
TUDA and the petitioners thereafter proceeded regarding
providing set-backs etc. but the TUDA did not pass any order
permit.	 ting construction. Thereupon  Unnikrishnan  through
EPG filed a writ petition (No. 5287 of 1988) before the High
Court  complaining against the flagrant disregard of  provi-
sions  of  law by the Urban Development	 Authority  and	 the
Municipal  Council. Trichur and praying for a  mandamus	 di-
recting these authorities to accord permission to the  peti-
tioner to raise construction in compliance with the  permis-
sion  granted by the State Government. By an  interim  order
dated  5.7.1983, the High Court directed the TUDA to  permit
the  petitioner to construct a building in  accordance	with
the permission granted by the Trichur Municipality. On	29th
July, the TUDA passed the order permitting the petitioner to
construct subject to decision of writ petition. After  grant
of  interim order, UK, the owner, handed over possession  of
the  land to SN and executed the sale deed in favour of	 his
wife in October 1983. It appears the appellants attempted to
raise further construction by adding another story for which
they had no permission.
    In	order to change their said action, a  writ  petition
was  filed  by Shri Achuta Menon, Ex-Chief Minister  of	 the
State-respondent under the public interest litigation alleg-
ing  that the Government was not discharging its  Obligation
of  fulfilling non-official vacancies on the board of  TUDA.
The petition further alleged connivance between the  Govern-
ment and the petitioner-UK in securing permission  regarding
construction  attributing the same to the influence that  UK
was  wielding with the Government. The High Court  dismissed
the  writ  petition filed by UK holding the same to  be	 not
maintainable  for  lack of bona-fide and  allowed  the	writ
petition fried by the respondent and gave certain directions
to  the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate action  in
relation to the construction, raised in pursuance of interim
order  granted by the High Court. The Division Bench  having
affirmed the order passed by the Single Judge, these appeals
have been filed in this Court, against those orders
Allowing the appeals, this Court,
    HELD:  On the issue of non-maintainability, it may be
stated	that denial of constitutional remedy, for this	rea-
son, cannot be equated with bad faith or lack of  bona-fide.
The  scope of the two are different. In one a person may  be
honest	and his grievance genuine, yet the Court may not  be
able to grant him any relief as any part of it the cause  of
action	did  not arise within the  territorial	jurisdiction
exercised by the High Court or the petition may be defective
as  the person approaching may not be entitled to  file	 it.
That is something akin to lack of jurisdiction.
The  other,  namely, dismissal for bad faith arises  due  to
improper conduct of the person invoking jurisdiction  either
before or after presentation of the petition. [641H-642B]
    Even  an  unassailable cause or  illegal  and  arbitrary
order  may fail to move the conscience of the Court  due  to
inequitable  and unjustifiable behavior or conduct in  equi-
table  jurisdiction. The basic error committed by  the	High
Court  was  that  it did not keep in  mind  the	 distinction
between non-maintainability and lack of bona-fide. [642C]
    The TUDA acted arbitrarily and without any justification
in withholding the permission. [652C]
    The	 restriction, Visualized, under Section 15,  of	 the
Act,  does not come into operation prior to  publication  of
the second notification under rule 33(b). [653F]
    Even  assuming that in the interest of planned  develop-
ment,  no  one could be permitted to build  or	construct  a
building unless the plan had been approved by the TUDA or it
is  at least routed through it, the TUDA could not  withhold
it as it was contemplating to revive some scheme. [654B]
    Chhetriya  Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State  of
U.P. and Ors., JT 1990 3 SC 685; Ramsharan Autyanuprasi	 and
Ors.  v. Union of India & Ors., [1989] Suppl. 1 SCR 251	 and
Schidanand Panday and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and	Ors.
[1987] 2 SCC 295, referred to.