Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
NO. IA 10 OF 2012
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10535 OF 2011
Chairman & CEO, NOIDA & Anr. … Appellants
Versus
Mange Ram Sharma (D) Thr. LRs & Anr. …
Respondents
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
Dr. G.P. Pathak,
C/o D-156, Sector 27,
NOIDA – 201301 … Applicant
JUDGMENT
R D E R O
1. By this order, we will dispose of the above Interlocutory
Application filed on behalf of Dr. G.P. Pathak. The prayer in this
application is that this Court should modify para 4 of the
th
directions contained in the order dated 30 July, 2012. While
making the above prayer, it is submitted that the New Okhla
Page 1
Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) has published a policy
in furtherance to order of this Court and in clause 3 made a
criteria which renders the applicant ineligible for obtaining a
second plot under the same scheme. The contention is that
under the general schemes floated by the NOIDA, a person is
entitled to get two plots and can even take two adjacent plots.
Such allotment is required to be made by the authority and there
is no restriction. However, the scheme framed under the orders
of the Court is placing the applicant at a disadvantageous
th
position. Para 4 of the directions contained in order dated 30
July, 2012 reads as under :
“4. The persons who have been allotted
lands by the NOIDA previously under any
Scheme, would not be eligible to the benefit
of the Special Scheme floated by the NOIDA
in furtherance of the order of this Court.”
JUDGMENT
Clause 3 of the ‘Special Scheme’ reads as under :
“3. The tenderer can Bid for a maximum of
2 (two) plots out of all plots offered in above
Scheme. However, in that case net worth of
the tenderer should exceed aggregate net
worth required for both the plots applied for
by the tenderer taken together. In case the
two adjoining plots are allotted to any
successful bidder, amalgamation of the said
two plots shall be permissible.”
2
Page 2
2. There is no dispute to the fact that the applicant was
running a clinic in the residential area and has to close the same
activity in furtherance to the orders of this Court. He would be
entitled to apply under the ‘Special Scheme’ formulated by the
NOIDA under the order of the Court. The question is as to
whether under the ‘Special Scheme’, the applicant can claim two
plots? We have no hesitation in answering the said question in
the negative. This is a ‘Special Scheme’ floated by NOIDA as per
the directions of this Court. It is not a ‘General Scheme’ floated
by NOIDA of its own. The terms and conditions applicable under
‘General Scheme’ floated by NOIDA will have such eligibility
criteria and terms and conditions that NOIDA in its wisdom finds
suitable and in consonance with its policy. Such ‘General
JUDGMENT
Scheme’ may permit grant of double benefit i.e. the party may be
a successful bidder even in two plots. To the contrary under the
‘Special Scheme’ no person can be permitted to derive double
benefit even if a person was running two clinics or two small
nursing homes in the hospital area. He can easily club both
such clinics or nursing homes and build a common hospital just
by raising additional construction as may be permissible. It is
3
Page 3
not disputed before us that the applicant has already got a plot
for establishing a nursing home and in fact he has already built a
nursing home there. We see no reason why he should get
double benefit under the court directed ‘Special Scheme’. We do
not see any necessity to alter or modify para 4 of the directions
th
contained in the order dated 30 July, 2012. Consequentially,
there is also no requirement for modification of clause 3 of the
‘Special Scheme’ floated by the NOIDA which debars a person
who has already been given a plot. We do not think that there
was any occasion for the NOIDA even to introduce clause 3. In
fact, we direct its deletion. Nobody would get two plots under
this ‘Special Scheme’.
3. We make it clear that the net worth of a tenderer would be of
no consideration for giving such applicant two plots as the plots
JUDGMENT
are being allotted in furtherance of the orders of the Court and,
thus, could not be used as an instrument for providing state
largesse in a manner not contemplated in terms of the judgment.
4. We also make it clear that if, for any reason, the plots
declared by NOIDA for construction of nursing homes are not sold
under this ‘Special Scheme’, the NOIDA would be free to
4
Page 4
formulate its general policy for allotment of such plots for nursing
homes and the present applicant can apply under that scheme as
per the terms and conditions of that policy, if such policy does
not put any embargo or restriction upon grant of another plot.
5. In view of the above discussion, we dispose of this
application with the following order :
(a) We decline to modify para 4 of the directions contained in
th
the order of this Court dated 30 July, 2012.
(b) We are of the considered view that turnover of a company
has no connection with the number of plots that could be
allotted to an applicant under the scheme formulated in
furtherance to the said order of the Court. Suffice it to note
that two plots cannot be allotted under this Scheme. Thus,
JUDGMENT
we quash clause 3 of the brochure. The same shall stand
deleted with retrospective effect.
(c) Any plots which remain unallotted under the ‘Special
Scheme’ relating to nursing homes, the NOIDA will be at
liberty to formulate a ‘General Scheme’ for auctioning such
plots in terms of its policy and the applicant, if eligible in
5
Page 5
terms of that policy, can participate in the auction for
buying the plot.
6. The Interlocutory Application is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
………............................J.
[ Swatanter Kumar ]
……...............................J.
[ Ranjana Prakash Desai ]
New Delhi
September 13, 2012
JUDGMENT
6
Page 6