Allahabad High Court
Suprabha Indus. Ltd. Thru Auth. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. ... on 5 July, 2021
Bench: Attau Rahman Masoodi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 5
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 10675 of 2020
Petitioner :- Suprabha Indus. Ltd. Thru Auth. Sign. Praveen Kumar Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Industrial Devpt. & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dipak Seth,Ratnesh Chandra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Sahu
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
(1) Heard Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri H. J. S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manoj Sahu, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 i.e. UPSIDC and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2) This petition has questioned the legality of the order passed by the State Government on 06.05.2020 as contained in annexure No.1 to the writ petition, primarily on the ground that in absence of any statutory mandate to review its orders passed under Section 41 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban, Planning and Development Act, 1973 read with section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, the order impugned is without any authority of law.
(3) This Court in the present proceeding is neither concerned with the allotment of plot in question nor with the quantum of sale consideration for the reason that the proceedings in this regard have already culminated in Writ Petition No. 6743 (MB) of 2008 by judgment/order dated 04.10.2010. It is gathered that not only the entitlement of allotment of plot in question was addressed by this Court, but to the fact the rate per square meter at Rupees 1,500/- was also decided between the parties. Later on, pursuant to the judgment passed by this Court when the allotment of the plot in question proceeded in favour of the petitioner at an enhanced rate of Rupees 1,820/- per Square Meter by letter dated 18.12.2010, which according to the opposite party No.2 was as per the consent of the petitioner, the matter was again challenged before the State Government under its revisional power exercisable by virtue of Section 41 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban, Planning and Development Act, 1972 read with section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. The matter was decided by the State Government on 19.12.2018, affirming the rate of property in question at Rupees 1,500/- Square Meter. Even the review application filed against the said order was also rejected on 20.09.2019. Later on, the second application for review appears to have been filed by opposite party No.2 raising a dispute before the revisional authority under Section 41 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban, Planning and Development Act, 1972 read with section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. Section 41 Clause (3) and (4) for ready reference are reproduced here under:
"41(3) The State Government may, at any time, either on its own motion or on application made to it in this behalf, call for the records of any case disposed of or order passed by the [Authority or the Chairman) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any order passed or direction issued and may pass such order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it may think fit.
Provided that the State Government shall not pass an order prejudicial to any person without affording such person a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
(4)Every order of the State Government made in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court."
Section 12 of the Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 is also reproduced here under:
"The provision of Chapter VII and section 30, 32, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53 and 58 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 173 as re-enacted and modified by the Uttar Pradesh President's act (re-enactment with modifications) Act, 1974, shall mutatis mutandis apply to the Authority with adaptation that
(a) any reference to the aforesaid Act shall be deemed to be a reference to this act:
(b) any reference to the Authority constituted under the aforesaid Act shall be deemed to be a reference to the Authority constituted under this Act: and
(c) any reference to the Vice-Chairman of the Authority shall be deemed to be a reference to the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority."
(4) Sri H. J. S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for UPSIDC while defending the impugned order has argued that the power exercisable by virtue of Section 41 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban, Planning and Development Act, 1972 can be invoked at any time suo motu or on an application made to the State Government in this behalf.
(5) Learned Senior Counsel has argued that the provision empowers the State Government even to re-visit an order passed in exercise of revisional power.
(6) Sri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently disputed such an interpretation as has been advanced by learned Senior Counsel and it is submitted that the order passed by the State Government once attains finality by virtue of Section 41 (4) cannot be re-visited in exercise of the power of review unless sanctified.
(7) On a careful consideration of the rival submissions put forth by learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the revisional power once exercised by the State Government attains finality by virtue of Section 41 (4). This exercise of power on a clear reading of the statutory provision is not open to review inasmuch as the power to review unless conferred by the statute in respect of the final orders cannot be exercised to unsettle a position which has attained finality. The only exception is a case of fraud which is not the situation at hand. The submission put forth by learned counsel for the opposite party, therefore, it is not sustainable in the eye of law and deserves to be rejected. The impugned order passed by the State Government is undoubtedly, without authority of law and deserves to be set aside on this ground alone.
(8) Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. This however does not suggest that the UPSIDC is prevented from invoking the remedy as may be available in law.
Order Date :- 5.7.2021
Darpan Sharma
