Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the resumption of an industrial plot allotted to the respondent by the Haryana Urban Development Authority under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The respondent was required to pay 25% of the price initially and the balance in six equal instalments, but after paying the first instalment, he defaulted on the remaining instalments. The Estate Officer issued a show cause notice under Section 17(3) on 5 September 1994 and a penalty notice, but these could not be personally served and were served by affixture. A notice dated 10 January 1995 provided an opportunity for personal hearing, but the respondent never appeared. Consequently, the plot was resumed under Section 17(4) and the deposited amount was forfeited. The respondent's appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, which found that he had evaded service and committed persistent defaults. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, pleading financial difficulties and readiness to pay the remaining amount. The High Court allowed the writ petition without recording any finding of procedural irregularity, keeping in view the financial stringency, interests of the parties, and the petitioner's willingness to pay, and directed that interest be charged at 10% per annum instead of 18% as calculated by the authority. The Haryana Urban Development Authority appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's power under Article 226 is limited to judicial review of procedural correctness and cannot be used to examine merits like an appellate authority. The respondent had ignored repeated notices and the opportunity of personal hearing, and therefore could not be allowed to plead financial stringency for the first time before the High Court. The Court emphasized that there is no room for benevolence under Article 226, as departing from law would make justice personalized and vary from judge to judge. In the absence of any procedural irregularity or violation of natural justice, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Writ Jurisdiction - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The Supreme Court held that the High Court's power under Article 226 is limited to examining procedural correctness and cannot extend to merits of the controversy like an appellate authority. In the absence of any procedural irregularity or violation of principles of natural justice, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of resumption under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, Sections 17(3) and 17(4). Held that the High Court erred by acting as a benevolent appellate authority. B) Constitutional Law - Writ Petition - New Plea - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - A party who failed to respond to repeated notices and did not avail personal hearing cannot be allowed to plead financial stringency for the first time in a writ petition. The respondent had not paid instalments as undertaken, and the resumption and forfeiture followed due process. Held that entertaining such unverified and unsubstantiated plea would encourage contumacious conduct and breach of undertakings. C) Constitutional Law - Judicial Discipline - Benevolence Not Permitted - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The Supreme Court emphasized that there is no room for benevolence under Article 226; if the court departs from law, justice becomes personalized and varies from judge to judge. The High Court interfered solely on financial stringency and reduced interest rate from 18% to 10% without any finding of procedural irregularity. Held that the High Court's order was set aside and the writ petition dismissed, with appeal allowed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could entertain the plea of financial stringency raised for the first time in the writ petition and grant relief absent procedural irregularity; whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by acting as an appellate authority
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Power under Article 226 is judicial review
- High Court can only examine procedural correctness
- cannot act as appellate authority
- no benevolence under Article 226
- plea of financial stringency not to be entertained for first time
- absent procedural irregularity
- High Court has no jurisdiction
- court should not encourage contumacious conduct and breach of undertakings
