NDLI: Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Constitution of India 1950: Article 14 - Principle of equality
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Constitution of India, 1950:Article 14 - Principle of equality - Exercise of power by political entities and officers/officials - Scope of - Held: For achieving the goals of Justice and Equality set out in the Preamble, the State and its agencies/instrumentalities have to function through political entities and officers/officials at different levels - The exercise of power by political entities and D officers/officials for providing different kinds of services and benefits to the people always has an element of discretion, which is required to be used in larger public interest and for public good and in a rational and judicious manner without any discrimination against anyone - In Indian constitutional structure, no functionary of the State or public authority has an absolute or unfettered discretion - The very idea of unfettered discretion is totally incompatible with the doctrine of equality enshrined in the Constitution and is an antithesis to the concept of rule of law - Administrative law. Part Ill; IV; Article 39(b) - Role of the State - Discussed.Administrative law: State and/or its agencies instrumentalities - Action/decision of to give largest or confer benefit on any person - Held: Must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognised modes of publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a non-discriminatory or non-arbitrary method irrespective of the class or category of persons proposed to be benefitted by the policy - Distribution of largesse such as allotment of land by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favoritism or nepotism should not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State - By entertaining applications made by individuals, organisations or institutions for allotment of land or for grant of any other type of largesse, the State cannot exclude other eligible persons from lodging competing claim. The competent authority should, as a matter of course, issue an advertisement incorporating therein the conditions of eligibility so as to enable all similarly situated eligible persons, institutions/organisations to participate in the process of allotment, whether by way of auction or otherwise - The allotment of land which carry the tag of caste, community or religion is not only contrary to the idea of Secular Democratic Republic but is also fraught with grave danger of dividing the society on caste or communal lines - The allotment of land to such bodies/organisations/institutions on political considerations or by way of favoritism or nepotism is constitutionally impermissible - In the instant case, reservation and allotment of land to respondent no.5 was not preceded by any advertisement in the newspaper or by any other recognised mode of publicity inviting applications from organizations/institutions for allotment of land and everything was done by the political and non-political functionaries of the State as if they were under a legal obligation to allot land to respondent No.5 - The advertisements issued by the State functionaries were only for inviting objections against the proposed reservation and/or allotment of land in favour of respondent no.5 and not for participation in the process of allotment - Therefore, allotment of land to respondent No.5 was not done by following a procedure consistent with Arlicle 14 of the Constitution.Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973:Object of its enactment - Discussed. s.23-A - Development Plan - Modification of - Whether notifications by which the Bhopal Development Plan was modified and land use was .changed were ultra vires the provisions of s. 23-A - Held: The power of modification of development plan can be exercised only for specified purposes- In terms of s.23-A(1)(a), the development plan can be modified by the State Government either suo motu or at the request of the Authority for any proposed project of the Government of India or the State Government and its enterprises or for any proposed project relating to development of the State or for implementing a scheme of the Authority- In the instant case, in the Bhopal Development plan, the use of land which was reserved and allotted to respondent No. 5 was shown as public and semi-public (health) - State Government modified the plan by invoking s.23-A(1)(a) for facilitating establishment of an institute by respondent No. 5 - The exercise undertaken for the change of land use, which resulted in modification of the development plan was an empty formality because land was allotted to respondent No. 5 almost two years prior to the issue of notification u/s. 23A (1 )(a) and the objects for which respondent No. 5 was registered as a trust had no nexus with the purpose for which modification of development plan could be effected under that section - Therefore, modification of the development plan was ultra vires the provisions of s.23-A(1)(a) - Urban development.Madhya Pradesh Revenue Book Circular: Unregistered societies and private trusts are not eligible for allotment of land.Writ petition: Locus standi - Held: Even if a person files a writ petition for vindication of his private interest but raises question of public importance involving exercise of power by men in authority then it is the duty of the Court to enquire into the matter.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 279
Petitioner	Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress
Respondent	State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.
SCR	[2011] 5 S.C.R. 77
Judgement Date	2011-04-06
Case Number	2965

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors Vs. M/s. M.v. Vya

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Sheopat Rai and Ors.

Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. N. Subbarayudu & Ors.

Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh & Anr.

Chandra Bansi Singh and Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. Etc.

General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Anju Jain

State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors.

State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Dr. Yashwant Trimbak

Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors Vs. M/s. M.v. Vya

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Sheopat Rai and Ors.

Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. N. Subbarayudu & Ors.

Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh & Anr.

Chandra Bansi Singh and Ors. Etc. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. Etc.

General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Anju Jain

State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors.

State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Dr. Yashwant Trimbak

Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.