Sachidananda
Pandey Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors [1987] INSC 43 (11 February 1987)
Reddy,
O. Chinnappa (J) Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) Khalid, V. (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 1109 1987 SCR (2) 223 1987 SCC (2) 295 JT 1987 (1) 425 1987 SCALE
(1)311
CITATOR
INFO : R 1988 SC 157 (8,12) F 1989 SC 549 (15) R 1989 SC 860 (20) RF 1991 SC
983 (2)
ACT:
Environmental
law-Interference by the Supreme Court with the policy decision of government,
whenever a problem of ecology is brought before it, extent of-Constitution of
India, 1950, Articles 32, 48A, 51A(g)--Whether the Government of West Bengal
was not alive to the ecological considerations, particularly the question of
the migratory birds and whether has shown such lack of awareness in making an
allotment of land to boost tourism by construction of Five Star Hotel to the
detriment of Zoological garden.
Cabinet
Memoranda dated January 7, 1981 and Sep. 9, 1981 allotting land for the
construction of Five Star Hotel to Taj Group of Hotels--Whether should contain
every item considered and whether non-mention lead to adverse presumption that
a particular point was not considered.
Natural
justice, principle-Whether the principle of natural justice is said to be
violated on the ground that those who are most interested in the Zoological
garden were not heard before the decision was taken.
New
plea in the Supreme Court for the first time--Public document, evidentiary
value of--Documents received admitted and relied on both by the Single and
Division Bench of the High Court--Plea of authenticity of the document and
objection to its reception, cannot be allowed in an appeal under Article 136 of
the Constitution.
The
Bengal Public Parks Act, 1904, Preamble Sections 3 and 4 scope and
applicability.
West
Bengal Land Management Manual, 1977, Paragraphs 165, 166, 167, applicability
of-Whether the procedure prescribed therein not being followed, the transfer of
the land to Taj Group of Hotels is bad.
Disposal
by Public auction or by inviting tenders Whether bound to be followed by the
State, in pursuing the socio-economic objectives enshrined in the Constitution.
224
Public Interest Litigation, parameters delineation need for stressed.
HEAD NOTE:
There
is in Calcutta, a Zoological garden located in Alipore,
now almost the heart of Calcutta, on either side of Belvedere Road, one of Calcutta's main arterial roads, forty nine
acres of land on one side and eight acres on the other. The main zoo is in the
forty nine acres block of land.
The
said eight acres of land was outside the Zoological garden and separated from
it by a 80-100 feet road and is also known as the Begumbari land. The Begumbari
land was given to the Zoological garden in '1880. According to a letter written
on July 7, 1880 by the Assistant Secretary to the Government of Bengal in the
Public works Department to Mr. L. Schwandler, Honorary Secretary Zoological
garden conveying the sanction of the Lt. Governor for the transfer of the Begumbari
land to the charge of the Committee of the Zoological Garden, on the terms
agreed to by the Committee in their letter dated April 23, 1880, the conditions
of the transfer were:
"(i)
that the land is to be used for the purpose of acclimatization only;
(ii) that
Carnivors are not to be kept on any part of it, on any account;
(iii) that
the grounds are to be kept clear and neat;
(iv) that
the land must be restored to the government if hereafter required, the
Zoological Garden Committee being reimbursed for any expenditure they may have
incurred in building there."
In this
eight acres of land there are some old buildings and the vacant land was used
for fodder cultivation, or raising flower nursery, as a sumping ground for huge
garbages and as burial ground for dead animals.
In
January, 1979, the Director General of Tourism Government of India addressed a
letter to the Chief Secretary Government of West Bengal conveying the
Resolution of the Tourism conference which was presided over by the Union
Minister of Tourism and attended by several State Ministers and requesting that
land in good location may be made available for construction of hotels in a
drive to encourage tourism. In May, 1980, the Taj Group of Hotels came forward
with a suggestion that they would be able to construct a Five Star Hotel. On September 29, 1980 and November 29, 1980, there were two notes by the Secretary of the Metropolitan
Development Department to the effect that the I.T.D.C. was interested in a
property known as the Hastings House Properly and that the Taj Group of Hotels
who considered the Hastings House properly unsuitable may be offered four acres
out of the eight acres of Begumbari land. On the same day the Taj Group of
Hotels wrote to the Government of West Bengal stating that the proposed land
could be seriously considered for construction of a hotel. Thereafter, 225 the
Chief Minister along with the Minister of Tourism and the Minister for
Metropolitan Development visited the site accompanied by the Director of the
Zoo to apparently knew about the proposal right from the start. A note was then
prepared by the Secretary, Metropolitan Development Department and put up to
the Chief Minister for his approval. The Chief Minister approved the proposal
and required it to be placed before the Cabinet. On January 7, 1981 a
memorandum was prepared for the consideration of the Cabinet explaining the
need for the more Five Star Hotels in Calcutta and the benefits flowing out of
the construction and establishment of such Five Star Hotels and suggesting the
lease of Hastings House Property to the I.T.D.C. Group and the Begumbari
property to the Taj Group of Hotels. In regard to the Begumbari property, it
was stated: "From the property of the Zoological Gardens on the Belvedere Road it is possible to carve out about
four acres of land currently used for dumping garbage and also for growing
grass for the elephants. It will be necessary and in any case advisable to
shift the dumping ground. While adequate space can be made available for
growing grass elsewhere in the same area." It was stated that the Finance
and Tourism Departments had agreed to the proposal to lease the properties to
the I.T.D.C. and the Taj Group respectively. It was stated that though the
Forest Department had suggested that Salt
Lake was a better place for establishing
a Five Star Hotel, there was no demand for a Five Star Hotel in that area and
the request for a hotel in Salt Lake was confined to a Three Star Hotel. Cabinet approval
was sought for the offers to be made to the I.T.D.C. and to the Taj Group and
for the constitution of a suitable Committee to undertake negotiations with the
two groups.
On February 12, 1981, the Cabinet took a decision
approving the proposal contained in the last paragraph of the Cabinet
Memorandum, thus clearing the way for negotiations with the Taj Group.
Meanwhile
the Public Undertakings Committee appointed by the West Bengal Legislative
Assembly submitted a report on 14.2. 1981 about the Zoo. While suggesting that
the government may consider abandoning the proposal to set up a hotel on the
eastern side of the zoo, the Committee also referred to a proposal to establish
a "Subsidiary Zoo" some slight distance from Calcutta and the request said to have been
made for the allotment of 200 acres of land for that purpose.
The
Chief Town Planner who visited the site at the request of the Secretary,
Metropolitan Development Department and in the presence of the Director of the
Zoo, suggested that 2 to 2-1/2 acres of land might be 226 made available for
the Hotel.
On
March 19, 1981 the Taj Group submitted a proposal to the government containing
fairly detailed information about the tourism industry and its needs, the
situation in Calcutta, the realities of Hotel construction the facts relating
to what had been done in other cities, the benefits i]owing out of the
construction of hotels and their own proposals for constructing a hotel in the
four acres of land in Belvedere Road. Two alternative financial arrangements
were suggested. The first alternative was the payment of annual rent on the
basis of the valuation of the land, the second alternative was based on the
concept of nett sales, nett sales being defined as sales after deducting all
taxes and levies and service charges. The Metropolitan Development Department
expressed a preference for the second alternative and suggested the constitution
of a Committee. The Finance Department also approved. The Taj Group was invited
to send the financial projection on the basis of the second alternative.
Correspondence went on. On June 5, 1981 a
Committee of Secretaries was formally constituted. In the meanwhile WEBCON, a
West Bengal Government Consultancy Undertaking, was asked to examine the
proposals and to advise the Government.
On June 11, 1981, the Managing Committee of the Zoo
passed a resolution expressing itself against the proposal to construct a hotel
on land belonging to the Zoo. Accepting the note put up by the Secretary
Metropolitan Development Department on the said resolution the Chief Minister minuted
that "if further facilities are necessary for the zoo, the government will
provide for them." On June 25, 1981,
the Managing Committee met again and passed another resolution by which they
withdrew their earlier objections dated 11.6.1981.
On
June 29, 1981, the Director of the Zoo, who was a party to all the proceedings
etc. right from the beginning wrote to the Secretary of Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Services Department stating his objections to the proposal to lease
the land for construction of a hotel.
On July 14, 1981, the WEBCON submitted its report
and on the request of the Committee of Secretaries a further report was
submitted on July 22,
1981. The report of
WEBCON is a comprehensive report on various topics connected with the
establishment of a Five Star Hotel in Calcutta. Among other things the report also suggested various financial
alternatives and recommended the second alternative based on nett sales as the
best.
227
Meanwhile negotiations with Taj Group proceeded apace.
The
WEBCON submitted further reports. Taj Group suggested further modifications. On
September 9, 1981 a detailed memorandum was prepared
for cabinet discussion. Two alternative financial proposals were set out. A
reference was made to the Committee of Secretaries who negotiated with the Taj
Group of Hotels. Note was taken of the suggestion of the Negotiation Committee
that the overall development plan for the environmental beautification,
widening of approach roads, landscaping of Tolley's Nullah were
responsibilities of the State Government and estimated to cost Rs.2 crores but
that it was expected to be of considerable public benefit. Stress was laid on
the direct and indirect economic activities which would be generated by the
establishment of a five Star Hotel. Reference was also made to the report of
WEBCON and it was noted that the projected profitability of the venture to the
government was expected to be high. It was also mentioned that the Ministers, incharge
of Tourism, Animal Husbandry, Land Revenue and Finance had seen the note and
had agreed to it. On September
10, 1981 the Cabinet
took the final decision to grant a ninety-nine years lease of the four acres of
Begumbari land to the Taj Group of Hotels. On September 29, 1981 the Government of West Bengal officially conveyed
its acceptance of the proposal of the Taj Group of Hotels for the construction
of a Five Star Hotel. The terms and conditions of the lease were set out.
On
January 7. 1982, there was a joint meeting of the Establishment and Finance
sub-Committees of the Zoo and it was decided to recommend to the Committee of
management that the demarcated area of four acres may be relinquished in favour
of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Department subject to the
requirement that the zoo will continue to get the services and the facilities
in the existing structures until they were reconstructed on the adjacent land.
On January 11, 1982 the Managing Committee endorsed the
view of the sub-committees and this was communicated to the government. On January 15, 1982, the Government of West Bengal
wrote to the Land Acquisition Officer, with copies to the Taj Group of Hotels
directing the Land Acquisition Officer to give possession of the land to the Taj
Group of Hotels subject to their later executing a proper long term lease. It
was mentioned in the letter that the construction of the Hotel should not be
started till the lease deed was executed and registered.
Several
other stipulations were also made. Though the stipulation was that the cost of
the new construction was to be initially met by Taj Group of Hotels and later
to be adjusted against the rent payable by Taj Group, the Taj Group later
agreed to waive such reimbursement (in fact a total sum of Rs.30 lakhs has been
spent by Taj Group of Hotels in connections with the reconstruction. Not only
this. land in the extent of 288 square 228 meters out of the plot given to them
was carved out and given hack for accommodating part of the reconstructed
structures.
Pursuant
to the letter dated January
15, 1982 possession
was given to Taj Group on January 16, 1982.
Thereafter an expert committee was constituted to supervise the construction of
alternative facilities.
Five
petitioners--a Trade Unionist, two life members of the Zoo, two other bonafide
residents of Greater Calcutta, all lovers of wild life--filed a petition in
public interest on 26.2.1982. Initially the relief sought was primarily to
restrain the Zoo authorities from giving effect to the two Resolutions dated
January 7, 1982 and January 17, 1982 to hand over the four acres to the Animal
Husbandry Department of the Government. Subsequent to the filing of the writ
petition a lease deed was executed by the Taj Group of Hotels in favour of the
government. The Writ Petition was therefore amended and a prayer for
cancellation was added.
While
the writ petition was pending in the High Court, Late Smt. Indira Gandhi wrote
a letter to Sri Jyothi Basu, the Chief Minister of West Bengal expressing the hope that he would
not allow the Calcutta Zoo to suffer in any manner and would leave it intact.
The Chief Minister in his reply letter dated 21.8.82 pointed out that:
(i)
the four acres of land were agreed to be relinquished by the Committee of
management of the Zoological Garden on condition that alternative arrangement
were made for shifting the existing structures which were necessary for the Zoo
from the plot in question to the adjacent plot;
(ii) the
plot in question was not a part of the Zoo
Garden;
(iii) till
the existing structures are relocated on the adjacent land, the zoo would
continue to get their services and facilities from the existing structures.
(iv)
the hotel was not the only tall building since there existed many such
residential buildings to which none raised an objection and that P&T
Department are also constructing one such tall building; and
(v)
the lessee and their experts on wild life had assured them that in any case
adequate precaution would be taken in regard to illumination of the hotel and
the layout of the surrounding so that no disturbance would be caused to the
flight path of the birds or animals.
To
similar effect was .the letter dated 30.8.1982 from Shri J.R.D. TATA to the
Prime Minister on September
1, 1982. Smt. Indira
Gandhi wrote to Mr. TATA expressing her happiness that the hotel was not going
to upset the Zoo animals and welcoming his offer to help the State Government
to improve the Zoo's facilities.
229 A
learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that
the West Bengal Government did not show any lack of awareness of the problem of
environment ecology in granting the lease of land. On appeal, a Division Bench
confirmed the said judgment. Hence the appeal by Special leave of the Court.
Dismissing
the appeal, the Court,
HELD:
(Per Chinnappa Reddy J.) 1.1 Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before
the Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind Art. 48 A of the Constitution the
Directive Principle which enjoins that "The State shall endeavour to
protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life
of the country, "and Art. 51A(g) Which proclaims it to be the fundamental
duty of every citizen of India "to protect and improve the
natural environment including forest, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have
compassion for living creatures." When the Court is called upon to give
effect to the Directive Principle and the fundamental duty, the Court is not to
shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is
matter for the policy making authority. The least that the court may do is to
examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind irrelevancies
excluded. In appropriate cases, the Court may go further, but how much further
must depend on the circumstances of the case. The court may always give
necessary directions. However the Court will not attempt to nicely balance
relevant considerations When the question involves the nice balancing of
relevant considerations, the court may feel justified in resigning itself to
acceptance of the decision of the concerned authority. If the Government is
alive to the various considerations requiring thought and deliberation and has
arrived at a conscious decision after taking them into account, it may not be
for the court to interfere in the absence of mala fides.
On the
other hand, if relevant considerations are not borne in mind and irrelevant
considerations influence the decision, the Court may interfere in order to
prevent a likelihood of prejudice to the public. [242B-F]
1.2
Applying the above guidelines to be followed when questions of ecology and
environment are raised, it is clear that the facts and circumstances brought
out by the appellants do not justify an inference that the construction of the
proposed hotel in the Begumbari land would interfere in any manner with the
animals in the Zoo and the birds arriving at the zoo or otherwise disturb the
ecology. The proposed hotel is a Garden-hotel and there is perhaps every chance
of the ecology and environment improving as a result of planting numerous trees
all 230 around the proposed hotel and the removal of the burial ground and
dumping ground for rubbish. [263A-B]
1.3
That the question of obstruction which may be caused to migratory birds did not
go unnoticed by the government before the decision to lease the land was taken,
is clear from the following:
(i) the
question of the migratory bird was first raised in the resolution of the
Managing Committee dated June
11, 1981. This
resolution was forwarded to the Chief Minister and considered by him as evident
from the note of the Chief Minister and the subsequent reversal of the Managing
Committee's resolution at the instance of the Chief Minister and on his
assurance;
(ii) that
the government was aware of the dissension based on the alleged obstruction
likely to be caused by a multi-storeyed building to the flight of the migratory
birds appears from the letter of the Chief Minister to the Prime Minister. In
this letter, the Chief Minister pointed out that there were already in
existence a number of multistoreyed buildings all around the Zoological Garden,
but there was no report that they had any adverse effect on the migratory birds
or the animals. He also pointed out that all precautions would be taken in the
matter of illumination of the hotel and lay out of the surroundings so that no
disturbance would be caused to the flight path of the birds or animals;
(iii) Shri
J.R.D. TATA, on behalf of the Taj Group of Hotels also wrote to the Prime
Minister assuring her that the hotel management had discussed the matter at
length with a representative of the Wild Life Fund who, after discussion had
been satisfied that the proposed hotel would cause no disturbance to the birds.
He
further assured her that he had himself gone thoroughly in to the project with
the special reference to the possible impact on the birds and the environment
and had satisfied himself that project would not cause any disturbance to the
birds or their free movement. He pointed out that the four acre plot was not
within the main Zoological Garden, but was separated from it by the Belvedere Road which was an important thoroughfare
in the city. It was about 700 feet from the main part of the lake. The hotel
was proposed to be built away from the frontage of the plot in Belvedere Road and was to be a low-rise structure,
the highest point of which would not exceed 75 feet, far below the trajectory
of the birds. He mentioned that Dr. Biswas a renowned ornithologist had also
been consulted by the Taj Management and he had also confirmed that a 75 feet
building would not interfere with the landing or climbing out of the birds from
the lake. He further mentioned that the grounds of the Zoo between the lake and
the Belvedere Road were covered with tail trees and that the birds negotiating
the trees would have to fly at a steeper angle than it would be necessary to negotiate
the proposed hotel. The vehicu231 lar traffic on Belvedere Road which was also heavy did not bother the birds and the
slight increase of the vehicular traffic consequent on the construction of the
hotel was also not likely to bother them either. It was also pointed out that
particular care would be taken in the matter of illumination of the hotel so
that bright lights or neon signs emanating from the hotel would not disturb the
birds and animals. In the circumstances, the government was alive to the
ecological considerations particularly the question of the migratory birds.
[260E-H; 261A-E]
2.1 It
is wrong to think that every thing not mentioned in the Cabinet Memoranda did
not receive consideration by the government. In the instant case the process of
choosing and allotting the land to the Taj Group of Hotels nearly took two
years during the course of which objections of various kinds were raised from
time to time. It was not necessary that everyone of these objections should
have been mentioned and considered in each of the Cabinet Memoranda. [260C-E]
2.2
The proposition that a decision must be arrived at after taking into account
all relevant considerations, eschewing all irrelevant considerations cannot for
a moment be doubted. In the instant case, relevant considerations were not
ignored and indeed were taken into consideration by the Government of West
Bengal. It is not one of those cases where the evidence is first gathered and a
decision is later arrived at one flue morning and the decision is incorporated
in a reasoned order. This is a case where discussion had necessarily to stretch
over a long period of time. Several factors have to be independently and
separately weighed and considered. This is a case where the decision and the
reasons for the decision could only be gathered by looking at the entire course
of events and circumstances stretching over the period from the initiation of
the proposal to the taking of the final decision. The argument that what was
not said in either of the Cabinet Memoranda could not later be supplemented by
considerations which were never present in the mind of the decision making
authority is not correct.
[263E-G]
Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal, [1969] 3 SCR 108 and Barium Chemicals
v. A.G. Rana, [1972] 2 SCR 752, referred to.
Mohinder
Singh Gill v. Central Election Commission, [1978] 2 SCR 273, distinguished.
3.
There was no failure to observe the principles of Natural Justice. Such as
those as were really interested in the matter like the Managing Committee of
the Zoological Garden and the Director of the 232 Zoo did have their say in the
matter. The Public Undertakings Committee in its report discussed the matter
and invited the Government's attention to various factors. The matter was
further discussed on the floor of the Legislative Assembly. [264B-D]
4.1
The two letters dated 23.4. 1880 and 7.7. 1880, pertaining to the grant
relating to the transfer of land to the east of Belvedere Road, known as Begumbari
land in 1880, produced from old official records, are public documents within
the meaning of the Evidence Act. No objection either to the authenticity or to
the admissibility of the documents was taken either before the Single Judge or
before the Division Bench. The Managing Committee of the Zoological Garden
never doubted the authenticity of the documents, nor was any question even
raised to suggest that the terms of the grant were other than those mentioned
in the letters. [265C-E]
4.2
The new plea relating to authenticity or admissibility of evidence cannot be
accepted in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The land which was
undoubtedly government land was given to the Zoological Garden upon the terms
set out in the two letters. One of the terms was that the land should be
restored to the government whenever required. Another terms was that the
Zoological Garden Committee would be suitably compensated for any expenditure
incurred by it on the construction of any building on the land. [265E]
5.1 It
is true that the Act of the legislature cannot be undone by a mere act of the
Executive. This is not a case where the statute vests land in the Committee and
the Executive takes it away by its fiat. The Begumbari land was government land
transferred to the charge of the Zoological Garden Committee in 1880 in
accordance with the conditions and terms agreed to by the Committee in their
letter dated 23.4.1880; namely;
"(i)
that the land is to be used for the purpose of acclimatization only;
(ii) that
Carnivors are not to be kept on any part of it, on any account;
(iii) that
the grounds are to be kept clear and neat;
(iv) that
the land must be restored to the government if hereafter required.
The
Zoological Garden Committee being reimbursed for any expenditure they may have
incurred in building there." Therefore, this is a case of resumption of
Government land under the terms of Agreement. [264E-H; 265A-B]
5.2
From the Preamble and the provisions of the Bengal Public Parks Act, 1904, it
is clear that the Act is intended to protect the inmates and the property of
the park from injury by persons resorting 233 to the park from molestations or
annoyance by others. The Act is aimed at protecting the part and its visitors
from injury and annoyance by despoilers and marauders. The Act has nothing whatever
to do with the vesting of any property in the parks. There is in fact no
provision which deal with the vesting of property in a park, Section 3 enables
the State Government to extend by a notification, the boundaries of a park but
that can only be for the purposes of the Act and not for the purpose of vesting
or creating any title in a property. If a piece of adjacent land, for example,
is taken on lease for a specified number of years by the park and included in
the park by a notification under s.3 it does not mean that the various things,
the doing of which is regulated or prohibited by the Act and the rule will not
be done or will be regulated on the adjacent land also. The provisions of the
Bengal Public Parks Act have no relevance to the question of the power of the
government to transfer the Begumbari land to the Taj Group of Hotels. [266C-F]
6.1
Statutes and statutory orders have no doubt to be obeyed. It does not mean that
other orders, instructions, etc. may be departed from in an individual case, if
applicable to the facts. They are not to be ignored until amended.
The
government or the Borad may have the power to amend these orders and
instructions, but nonetheless they must be obeyed so long as they are in force
and are applicable. But, from the perusal of the provisions of paragraphs 165
to 167 of the West Bengal Land Management Manual, it is clear that these
provisions of the Land Management Manual do not appear to have anything to do
with the transfer and use of the land in the manner proposed, in which the
State also have a vital stake apart from the mere raising of revenue for the
State.
Paragraphs
165, 166 and 167 deal with simple cases of creation of non-agricultural
tenancies by way of long term leases. They generally deal with land which is at
the disposal of the government as waste or surplus land and are intended to
secure the best revenue for the State. They do not deal with cases of transfer
of land for a specific socio-economic object, where, the securing of immediate
revenue. is not the principal object but other social and economic benefits are
sought. [267E-H]
6.2
The following propositions may be taken as well established on a considerations
of the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. State owned or public-owned
property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of he executive.
Certain precepts and principles have to be observed.
Public
interest is the paramount consideration. One of the methods of securing the
public interest, when it is considered necessary to dispose of a property, is
to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is
the ordinary rule. it is not an invariable 234 rule. There may be situations
where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule, but
then the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be
suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as
doing justice. Nothing should be done which gives an appearance of bias,
jobbery or nepotism. [273D-F]
6.3
Applying the above tests, it cannot be held that the government of West Bengal did not act with probity in not
inviting tenders or in not holding a public auction but negotiating straight
away at arm's length with the Taj Group of Hotels, in its pursuit or
socio-economic objective of encouraging tourism and earning more foreign
exchange. In the present case no one has come forward alleging that he has been
discriminated against and his fundamental right to carry on business had been
affected. The very nature of the construction and establishment of a Five Star
Hotel is indicative of a requirement of expertise and sound financial position
on the part of those who might offer to construct and establish them. The
decision taken by the All-India Tourism Council was an open decision well-known
to everyone in the hotel business. Yet no one except the I.T.D.C. and the Taj
Group of Hotels had come forward with any proposal.
The Oberoi
Group of Hotels already had a Five Star Hotel in Calcutta while the Welcome Group of Hotels were making their own
Private negotiations and arrangements for establishing a Five Star Hotel. In
the circumstances, particularly in the absence of any leading hotliers coming
forward, the government of West Bengal was perfectly justified in entering into
negotiation with the I.T.D.C. and the Taj Group of Hotels instead of inviting
tenders. Negotiations with those who had come forward with proposals to
construct Five Star Hotels was without doubt the most reasonable and rational
way of proceeding in the matter rather than inviting tenders or holding public
auction. There was nothing discriminatory in the procedure adopted since no
other leading hotlier had shown any inclination to come forward. Tenders and
auction were most impractical in the circumstances. The choice of the Taj Group
of Hotels must therefore be held to be beyond suspicion and above reproach.
[273F; 268D-F] Rash Bihari Panda v. State of Orissa, [1969] SCR 374;
R.B. Shetry
v. International Airport Authority, [1979] 3 SCR 10 14; Kasturi Lal Laxmi Reddy v.
State of Jammu & Kashmir, [1980] 3 SCR 1338; State of Haryana v. Jaga Ram, [1983] 4 SCC 56; Ram
and Shvam Co. v. State of Haryana,
[1985] 3 SCC 267 and Chenchu Rami Redav v. Go/vt. of Andhra Pradesh, [1986] 3
SCC 391, discussed.
7.1 On
a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the 235 case, it is
clear, that the government of West Bengal
acted perfectly bonafide in granting the lease of Begumbari land to the Taj
Group of Hotels for the construction of a Five Star Hotel in Calcutta. The government of West Bengal did not fail to take into account
any relevant consideration.
Its
action was not against the interest of the Zoological Garden or not in the best
interests of the animal inmates of the zoo or migrant birds visiting the zoo.
The financial interests of the State were in no way sacrificed either by not
inviting tenders or holding a public auction or by adopting the ''nett
sales" method. [274C-E]
7.2
The "nett sales" method appears to be fairly well known method adopted
in similar situations. This what was recommended by WEBCON, the consulting
agency of the West Bengal Government which submitted a detailed report on the
subject. This was also the recommendation of the Committee of Secretaries who
went into the matter in death, even to lay persons who are no financial
experts, it appears that the "nett sales" method does and the
rent-based-on-market value method does not take into account the appreciating
value of land, the inflationary tendency of the prices and the profit
orientation. Even on a prima a facie view, there appears to be nothing wrong. or
objectionable in the "nett sales" method. It is profit oriented and
appears to be in the best interests of the Government of West Bengal. [274AC]
Per Kahlid J. (concurring)
1.
Today public spirited litigants rush to courts to file cases in profusion under
attractive name Public Interest Litigation. They must inspire confidence in
courts and amongst the public. They must be above suspicions. Public Interest
Litigation has now come to stay. Bue one is led to think that it poses a threat
to courts and public alike.
Such
cases are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to
lay down clear guide-lines and to outline the correct parameters for entertainment
of such petitions. If courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the
name of Public Interest Litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and
the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon
themselves administrative and executive functions. This does not mean that
traditional litigation should stay put. They have to be tackled by other
effective methods, like decentralising the judicial system and entrusting
majority of traditional litigation to village courts and Lok Adalats without
the usual populist stance and by a complete restructuring of the procedural law
which is the villain in delaying disposal of cases. It is only when courts are
apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action
or when 236 basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such
acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court,
should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its
jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and
miseries of the needy, the under-dog and the neglected.
Extending
help when help is required does not mean that the doors of the Supreme Court
are always open to anyone to walk in. It is necessary to have some self imposed
restrained on public interest litigants, so that this salutary type of
litigation does not lose its credibility. [275C; 279A-F]
2. The
approach of the Taj Group Hotels in this case has been creditably fair. They
have given all the assurances necessary to preserve the Zoo and its inmates.
They were willing to afford all the requisite safeguards. In the place of a
dilapidated hospital, operation theater and the like, they constructed
buildings, a new at a cost of Rs. 30 lakhs which amount they were entitled to
be reimbursed under cl. 25 of the lease, which they voluntarily gave up. In
addition to this, they surrendered an area of 288 sq. metrs. from the land
allotted to them to the Zoo. They agreed to build not the usual sky scrapper
hotel, but a garden hotel, the height of which would not go beyond 75 feet,
despite the fact that there existed in the surroundings area buildings which
were very high. This was done to keep free the route of the flight of the
birds. They agreed to have subdued light in the hotel, again in the ineterest
of the birds. They also agreed to keep the surroundings of the hotel and the
flora well maintained and already 30,000 plants were getting ready to adjourn
the area to be occupied by them. [277H; 278A-C]
3.1
Regarding the commercial and financial aspects of the lease also, there is
nothing secretive. The method adopted is the nett sales method of calculating
the compensation paid, which is a well known method adopted in such situations
like the one, here namely lease of land by the Government. [278C-E]
3.2 A
deal like the one is given cannot be concluded by public auction as it is not a
case of sale of a government property. Being not a sale but a lease of land by
the government public auction has necessarily to be ruled out. Only Taj Group
of Hotels came forward with an offer to start the hotel. The lease was the
culmination after a long, elaborate and open procedure with nothing to hide
which therefore cannot justifiably be subject to adverse criticism. [278G-H]
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 378 of 1987.
237
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.1986 of the Calcutta High Court in
F.M.A.T. No. 1500 of 1984.
L.M. Singhvi
S.K. Jain, I. Makwana, A.M. Singhvi, Sudhanshu Atreya and S .D. Sharma for the
Appellants.
N.N. Gooptu,
Dipanker Gupta P. Mondal, D.K. Sinha, J.R. Das, T. Ray. R. Pal, B.R. Agarwala
and Ms. S. Manchanda for the Respondent.
The
following Judgments of the Court were delivered:
CHINNAPPA
REDDY, J. We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal.
A
hundred and thirty-two years ago, in 1854, 'the wise Indian Chief of Seattle' replied to the offer of 'the great
White Chief in Washington' to buy their land. The reply is profoundIt
is beautiful. It is timeless. It contains the wisdom of the ages. It is the
first ever and the most understanding statement on environment. It is worth
quoting. To abridge it or to quote extracts from it is to destroy its beauty.
You cannot scratch a painting and not diminish its beauty. We will quote the
whole of it:
*
"How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is
strange to us.
"If
we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can
you buy them? "Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every
shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every
clearing and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people.
The Sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man.
"The
white man's dead forget the country of their birth when they go to walk among
the stars. Our dead never forget this beautiful earth, for it is the mother of
the *Reproduced verbatim from Pariyavaran Vol. I No. 1, June 1984.
238
red man. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers
are our sisters; the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rockly
crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and man--all
belong to the same family.
"So,
when the Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy
our land, he asks much of us. The Great Chief sends word he will reserve us a
place so that we can live comfortably to ourselves. He will be our father and
we will be his children. So we will consider your offer to buy our land. But it
will not be easy. For this land is sacred to us.
"This
shining water moves in the streams and rivers is not just water but the blood
of our ancestors. If we sell you land, you must remember that it is sacred, and
you must teach your children that it is sacred and that each ghostly reflection
in the clear water of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my
people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father.
"The
rivers are our brothers, they quench our thirst. The rivers carry our canoes,
and food our children. If we sell you our land, you must remember, and teach
your children, that the rivers are our brothers, and yours and you must
henceforth give the kindness you would give any brother.
"We
know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of, land is
the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and
takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother but his
enemy, and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his fathers' graves
behind, and he does not care.
"He
kidnaps the earth from his children. His father's grave and his children's
birth-right are forgotten. He treats his mother, the earth, and his brother,
the sky, as things to be bought, plundered, sold like sheep or bright beads.
His appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only a desert.
239
"I do not know. Our ways are different from your ways. The sight of your
cities pains the eyes of the red man. But perhaps it is because the red man is
a savage and does not understand.
"There
is no quite place in the white man's cities. No place to hear the unfurling of
leaves in spring or the rustle of an insect's wings. But perhaps it is because
I am a savage and do not understand. The clatter only seems to insult the ears.
And what is there to life if a man cannot hear the lonely cry of the
whippoorwill or the arguments of the frogs around a pond at night? I am a red
man and do not understand. The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind
darting over the face of a pond, and the small of the wind itself, cleansed by
a mid-day rain, or scented with the pinon pine.
The
air is precious to the red man, for all things share the same breath--the
beast, the tree, the man, they all share the same breath. The white man does
not seem to notice the air he breathes. Like a man dying for many days, he is
numb to the stench. But if we sell you our land, you must remember that the air
is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all the life it
supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also receives the
last sigh. And if we sell you our land, you must keep it apart and sacred as a
place where even the white man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by
the meadows flowers.
"So
we will consider your offer to buy our land. If we decide to accept, I will
make one condition. The White man must treat the beasts of this land as his
brothers.
"I
am a savage and I do not understand any other way. I have seen a thousand
rotting buffaloes on the prairie, left by the white man who shot them from a
passing train. I am a savage and I do not understand how the smoking iron horse
can be more important than the buffalo that we kill only to stay alive.
"What
is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a
great loneliness of spirit.
240
For whatever happens to the beasts soon happens to man. All things are
connected.
"You
must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of our
grandfathers. So that they will respect the land. Tell your children that the
earth is rich with the lives of our kin. Teach your children what we have
taught our children, that the earth if sun mother. Whatever befalls the earth
befalls the sons of the earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon
themselves.
"This
we know: The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. This we
know: All things are connected-like the blood which unites one family. All
things are connected.
"Whatever
befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave to web of
life: he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web he does to
himself.
"Even
the white man, whose God walks and talks with him as friend to friend, cannot
be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We shall see.
One thing we know, which the white man may one day discover--our God is the
same God. You may think now that you own Him as you wish to own our land;
but
you cannot. He is the God of man, and His compassion is equal for the red man
and the white. This earth is precious to Him, and to harm the earth is to heap
contempt on its Creater. The white too shall pass; perhaps sooner than all
other tribes. Contaminate your bed and you will one night suffocate in your own
waste.
"But
in your perishing you will shine brightly, fired by the strength of the God who
brought you to this land and for some special purpose gave you dominion over
this land and over the red man. That destiny is a mystery to us, for we do not
understand when the wild buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses are
tamed, the secret corners of the forest heavy with scent of many man and the
view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires. Where is the thicket? 241
Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone. The end of living and the beginning of
survival." Today society's interaction with nature is so extensive that
the environmental question has assumed proportions affecting all humanity. Industrialisation,
urbanisation, explosion of population, overexploitation of resources, depletion
of traditional sources of energy and raw materials and the search for new
sources of energy and raw materials, the disruption of natural ecological
balances, the destruction of a multitude of animal and plant species for
economic reasons and sometimes for no good reason at all are factors which have
contributed to environmental deterioration. While the scientific and
technological progress of man has invested him with immense power over nature,
it has also resulted in the unthinking use of the power, encroaching endlessly
on nature. If man is able to transform deserts into cases, he is also leaving
behind deserts in the place of cases. In the last century, a great German
materialist philosopher warned mankind: "Let us not, however, flatter
ourselves overmuch on account of our human victories over nature. For each such
victory nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first
place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places
it has quite different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the
first." Ecologists are of the opinion that the most important ecological
and social problem is the wide-spread disappearance all over the world of
certain species of living organisms. Biologists forecast the extinction of
animal and plant species on a scale that is incomparably greater than their
extinction over the course of millions of years. It is said that over half the
species which became extinct over the last 2,000 years did so after 1900. The
International Association for the Protection of Nature and Natural Resources
calculates that now, on an average, one species or sub-species is lost every
year. It is said that approximately 1,000 bird and animal species are facing
extinction at present. So it is that the environmental question has became
urgent and it has to be properly understood and squarely met by man. Nature and
history, it has been said, are two component parts of the environment is which
we live, move and prove ourselves.
In India, as elsewhere in the world,
uncontrolled growth and the consequent environmental deterioration are fast
assuming menacing proportions and all Indian cities are afflicted with this
problem. The once Imperial City of Calcutta is.no exception. The question raised in the present case is whether the
Government of West Bengal has shown such lack of awareness of the problem of
environment in making an 242 allotment of land for the construction of a Five
Star Hotel at the expense of the zoological garden that it warrants
interference by this Court? Obviously, if the Government is alive to the
various considerations requiring thought and deliberation and has arrived at a
conscious decision after taking them into account, it may not be for this Court
to interfere in the absence of mala fides. On the other hand, if relevant
considerations are not borne in mind and irrelevant considerations influence
the decision, the Court may interfere in order to prevent a likelihood of
prejudice to the public. Whenever a problem of ecology is brought before the
Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind Art. 48A of the Constitution, the
Directive Principle which enjoins that "The State shall endeavour to
protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life
of the country," and Art. 51A(g) which proclaims it to be the fundamental
duty of every citizen of India "to protect and improve the
natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have
compassion for living creatures." When the Court is called upon to give
effect to the Directive Principle and the fundamental duty, the Court is not to
shrug its shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is
a matter for the policy-making authority. The least that the Court may do is to
examine whether appropriate consideration are borne in mind and irrelevancies
excluded. In appropriate cases, the Court may go further, but how much further
must depend on the circumstances of the case. The Court may always give
necessary directions. However the Court will not attempt to nicely balance
relevant considerations. When the question involves the nice balancing of
relevant considerations, the Court may feel justified in resigning itself to
acceptance of the decision of the concerned authority. We may now proceed to
examine the facts of the present case.
There
is in Calcutta a zoological garden located in Allipore,
now almost the heart of Calcutta, on either side of Belvedere Road, one of Calcutta's main arterial roads, forty nine
acres on one side and eight acres on the other.
The
main zoo is in the forty nine acres block of land. There are some old buildings
and vacant land in the eight acre plot of land. This eight acre plot of land is
known as the Begumbari land. It is out of these eight acres that the land of
the extent of four acres has been carved out and given to the Taj Group of
Hotels for the construction of a Five Star Hotel. It is this giving away of
land, that was challenged before the High Court and is now challenged in this
Court in this appeal by two citizens of Calcutta, one of them the Secretary of
the Union of workmen of the zoological garden and the other a life 243 member
of the zoo, both of whom claiming to be lovers of wild life and well-wishers of
the zoo.
In
January 1979, the Director General of Tourism, Government of India, addressed a
letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of West Bengal conveying the
resolution of the Tourism Conference which was presided over by the Union
Minister of Tourism and attended by several State Ministers and requesting that
land in good locations may be made available for construction of hotels in a
drive to encourage tourism. In May, 1980 the Taj Group of Hotels came forward
with a suggestion that they would be able to construct a Five Star Hotel if any
of three properties on Chowringhee, specified by them, was made available to
them. The Government found that there was some litigation connected with the Chowringhee
properties and, therefore, it would not be possible to convey the Chowringhee
properties to the Taj Group of Hotels. On September 29, 1980 and November 29,
1980, there were two notes by the Secretary of the Metropolitan Development
Department to the effect that the I.T.D.C.
was
interested in a property known as the Hastings House Property and that the Taj
Group of Hotels who considered the Hastings House property unsuitable may be
offered four acres out of the eight acres of Begumbari land. On the same day
the Taj Group of Hotels wrote to the Government of West Bengal stating that the
proposed land could be seriously considerd for construction of a Hotel.
Thereafter the Chief Minsiter along with the Minister of Tourism and the
Minister for Metropolitan Development visited the site accompanied by the
Director of the Zoo who apparently knew about the proposal right from the
start. A note was then prepared by the secretary, Metropoli tan Development
Department and put up to the Chief Minister for his approval. The note
suggested that the Hastings House property may be offered to the I.T.D.C. and
the Begumbari property may be offered to the Taj Group and that at a later
stage a suitable Committee might be appointed to negotiate with the two groups
of hotels. The Chief Minister approved the proposal and required it to be
placed before the Cabinet. On January 7, 1981
a memorandum was prepared for the consideration of the Cabinet explaining the
need for more Five Star Hotels in Calcutta and the benefits flowing out of the construction and establishment of
such Five Star hotels. It was suggested that the Hastings House Property may be
leased to the I.T.D.C. Group and the Begumbari property to the Taj Group of
Hotels. In regard to the Begumbari property, it was stated: "From the
property of the Zoological Gardens on the Belvedere Road it is possible to carve out about four acres of land
currently used for dumping garbage and also for 244 growing grass for the
elephants. It will be necessary and in any case advisable to shift the dumping
ground, while adequate space can be made available for growing grass elsewhere
in the same area." It was stated that the Finance and Tourism Department
had agreed to the proposal to lease the properties to the I.T.D.C. and the Taj
Group respectively.
It was
stated that though the Forest Department had suggested that Salt Lake was a
better place for establishing a Five Star Hotel, there was no demand for a Five
Star Hotel in that area and the request for a hotel in Salt Lake was
confined to a Three Star Hotel. Cabinet approval was sought for the offers to
be made to the I.T.D.C. and to the Taj Group and for the constitution of a
suitable Committee to undertake negotiations with the two groups.
On February 12, 1981, the Cabinet took a decision
approving the proposal contained in the last paragraph of the Cabinet
Memorandum, thus clearing the way for negotiations with the Taj Group.
Meanwhile,
it appeared that the Public Undertakings Committee appointed by the West Bengal
Legislative Assembly submitted a port on February 14, 1981 about the zoo in which they stated.
"*
* * * * * Originally this zoo was on the outskirts of the City but the City has
grown in such a fashion that the zoo has vertually become the City Centre and
there is hardly any scope for its expansion. The zoo is situated on the left
bank of the Tolly's Nallla divided with two parts on either said of the Alipore Road. The zoo proper is about 40 acres
on the Western side, while the eastern part comprises the Zoo Hospital,
audiovisual centre acquarium, Zoo store and Staff quarters. The Committee was
informed that nowadays migratory birds were coming less in number though
previously more foreign birds used to come here and in the opinion of the
Managing Committee, the main reason for this was due to air and sound pollution.
Breeding potentialities of animals and birds have been retarded due to constant
stress and strain on the animals and also due to atmospheric reasons. * * * * *
*The Committee came to learn that a big hotel was proposed to be constructed on
the plot of land where fodder for elephant are being grown to meet at least a
portion of the elephants food.
Moreover,
the staff quarters, hospitals for animals and the morgue are also situated near
the said plot of land. If the proposed hotel is set up, all the existing
buildings, viz.
hospital,
morgue etc.
245
would have to be shifted to the main Gardens resulting in unhealthy atmosphere
for the zoo animals and also hampering the beauty of the zoo Gardens. This
would also create problems to the staff quarters and acquarium." The
Committee also referred to a proposal to establish a 'Subsidiary Zoo' some
slight distance from Calcutta City and the request said to have been made for the allotment of
200 acres of land for that purpose. It was suggested that the Government may
consider abandoning the proposal to set up a hotel on the Eastern side of the
Zoo.
The
Chief Town Planner also visited the site at the request of the Secretary,
Metropolitan Development Department. The inspection was made in the presence of
the Director of the zoo. The Chief Town Planner thought that two to 21/2 acres
of land only might be made available for the hotel. He expressed the
apprehension that if four acres of land were to be given for construction of a
hotel, then the entire hospital and the dumping ground would have to be removed
and the southern boundary of the hotel would come very close to the residential
block.
On
March 19, the Taj Group submitted a proposal to the Government containing
fairly detailed information about the tourism industry and its needs, the
situation in Calcutta, the realities of hotel construction, the facts relating
to what had been done in other cities, the benefits flowing out of the
construction of hotels and their own proposals for constructing a hotel in the
four acres of land in Belyedere Road. Two alternative financial arrangements
were suggested.
The
first alternative was the payment of annual rent on the basis of the valuation
of the land, the second alternative was based on the concept of nett sales, nett
sales being defined as sales after deducting all taxes and levies and service
charges. The Metropolitan Development Department expressed a preference for the
second alternative and suggested the constitution of a Committee. The Finance
Department also approved. The Taj Group was invited to send the financial
projection on the basis of the second alternative.
Correspondence
went on. On June 5,
1981, a Committee of
Secretaries was formally constituted.
In the
meanwhile, WEBCON, a West Bengal Government Consultancy Undertaking, was asked
to examine the proposals and to advise the Government. The WEBCON submitted its
report on July 14, 1981 and on the request of the Committee
of Secretaries a further report was submitted on July 22, 1981. The report of WEBCON is a 246 comprehensive report on
various topics connected with the establishment of a Five Star Hotel in Calcutta. Among other things the report also
suggested various financial alternatives and recommended the second alternative
based on nett sales as the best. It is to be mentioned here that even by February 21, 1981 the proposal to lease out the Begumbari
land to the Taj Group of Hotels had become public knowledge and newspapers
carried reports on the same.
On
June 9, 1981, the Secretary of the Animal Husbandary and Veterinary Services
Department complained to the Secretary of the Metropolitan Development
Department that they were not aware of the decision to lease the Begambari
land.
The
Secretary, Metropolitan Development Department made an endorsement on the
letter to the effect that the Minister for Animal Husbandry and Veterinary
services had himself visited the site. In fact, as we have seen, the matter had
been considered and approved by the Cabinet itself and all Departments must
necessarily have been appraised of the proposal.
While
so, the Managing Committee of the Zoo, on June 11, 1981, passed a resolution
expressing itself against the proposal to construct a hotel on land belonging
to the Zoo.
The
Resolution said, "The proposal for soil testing of zoo land in the Begumbari
Compound for the purpose of construction of Five Star Hotel was discussed in
the meeting. The Committee resolved that construction of a multistories
buildings in the near vicinity of the zoo will be highly detrimental to the
animals of the Zoo, its ecological balance and adversely affect the bird
migration which is one of the greatest attractions of the zoo. The area
proposed to be taken for Hotel construction is already used by the zoo for
fodder cultivation, burial ground for dead animals, animal hospital, operation
theater, quarantine area, segregation wards, postmortem room and nursery both
for zoo animals and horticultural section.
These
essential services cannot be accommodated within the campus of the main zoo for
risk of spreading of infection to other animals of the zoo. Procurement of
green fodder for the large number of harvivorous animals of the zoo is already
a serious problem for the zoo and any disturbance to fodder cultivation will
aggravate the situation. The Calcutta Zoo has the smallest area in comparison
to other reputed Zoo. The Committee is of a opinion that no portion of Zoo land
can be parted with for any other 247 purpose. This being the position soil
testing will hardly be of any avail as the zoo cannot spare the land. Shri Ashoka
Basu, M.L.A., Shri K.P. Banerjee and Shri A.K. Das abstained from-participation
in the proceedings." The Minister for Metropolitan Development submitted a
note to the Chief Minister on the resolution of the Managing Committee of the
Zoo. He pointed out that even if four acres out of the eight acres of Begumbari
land was given to the Taj Group, there would still remain sufficient land for
accommodation of the facilities. He added that the Managing Committee's
resolution was not binding on the Government and suggested that the Director of
the Zoo might be asked to allow the Taj Group to undertake soil testing etc. so
that work may proceed according to the time-schedule. The Chief Minister
endorsed the following.
"I
agree. It is unfortunate that we have not been able to accept the contentions
of the Managing Committee. If further facilities are necessary for the Zoo, the
Government will provide them." In June 25, 1981, the Managing Committee of
the Zoo met again and passed another Resolution by which they withdrew their
earlier objections. The Resolution stated.
"In
view of the letter issued to the Zoological Gardens, Alipore and the Cabinet
decision regarding the land of Begumbari Compound and in consideration of the
assurance conveyed through Shri Ashoka Bose, Chief Whip and Member that the
State Government will give to the Garden adjacent lands and matching grants for
the purposes of shifting of the Departments of the Zoo within the said
compound, the members do not press their objections as contained in the
resolution of the Managing Committee held on 11.6.81.
This
was passed by the majority of the members present, the President Justice Shri
R.K. Banerjee dissenting." On June 29, 1981, the Director of the Zoo wrote
to the Secretary of the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Department
stating his objections to the Proposal to lease the land for construction of a
hotel. He stated, 248 "It appears that a total of four acres of Begumbari
land is proposed to be taken for hotel construction. It may be mentioned that
this four acres of land proposed to be taken is the only area available there
and it is presently covered by structures of hospital buildings, Research
Laboratory, Operation Theatre, Segregation Wards, Quarantine areas, post-mortem
room, burial ground for dead animals. In addition there are flower nursery,
dumping ground and fodder cultivation area. It is not at all possible to carve
out from this four acres of land without disturbing these structures and
services nor it is true that adequate space can be made available in this site
for these essential services.
It may
also be stated in this connection that the Zoo cannot be run for a single day
without these essential services, i.e.
(i) burial
ground for dead animals, a number of which die of infectious and communicable
diseases,
(2) quarantine
area for keeping animals coming to the Zoo, at least for 15 days before being
shifted to the Zoo proper,
(3) isolation
wards away from Zoo Hospital and quarantine area for treatment of animals suffering from
infectious and contagious diseases.
(4)
post-mortem room for carrying out p.m. findings,
(5) dumping
ground for dumping huge garbages coming out of the Zoo daily,
(6) fodder
cultivation area for growing fodder for the harbivorous animals and
(7) pathological
laboratory for carrying pathological tests of animals and birds.
"As
per clause 11 of the Alipore Zoological Garden (Management) Rules, 1957, the disposal of properties
and funds are vested in the Managing Committee of he Garden.
The
relevant clause of the rule reads as below:
"The
Managing Committee shall have custody and disposal of the property and funds of
the Gardens and shall be responsible for proper maintenance." Presumably
as a consequence of the letter from the Director of the Zoo there was a note by
the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Department suggesting
the postponement of the implementation of the Cabinet decision till the
necessary facilities then available at Begumbari land were shifted to other
land of the same extent within a reasonable distance from the Zoological
Garden, as 249 these facilities were originally linked with the Zoo. He pointed
out that the Metropolitan Development Department had not consulted the Animal
Husbandry Department before the Cabinet note was prepared and circulated. So
the practical problems of the Zoo did not receive detailed consideration
earlier. The note also pointed out that immediate transfer of the four acre
plot of land would mean discontinuance of existing hospital facilities,
research laboratory, operation theatre, segregation wards, quarantine
facilities etc. A reference was also made to the report of Public Undertakings
Committee.
Meanwhile
negotiations with Taj Group proceeded apace.
The
WEBCON submitted further reports. Taj Group suggested further modifications. On
September 9, 1981 a detailed memorandum was prepared for cabinet discussion.
Two alternative financial proposals were set out. A reference was made to the
Committee of Secretaries who negotiated with the Taj Group of Hotels. Note was
taken of the suggestion of the Negotiation Committee that the overall
development plan for the environmental beautification, widening of approach
roads, landscaping of Tolley's Nullah were responsibilities of the State
Government and estimated to cost Rs. 2 crores but that it was expected to be of
considerable public benefit. Stress was laid on the direct and indirect
economic activities which would be generated by the establishment of a Five
Star Hotel. Reference was also made to the report of WEBCON and it was noted
that the projected profitability of the ventur to the Government was expected
to be high. It was also mentioned that the Ministers, Incharge of Tourism,
Animal Husbandry, Land Revenue and Finance had seen the note and agreed to it.
On September 10, 1981 the Cabinet took the final decision
to grant a ninety-nine years lease of the Four acres of Begumbari land to the Taj
Group of Hotels. On September
28, 1981 the
Government of West Bengal officially conveyed its acceptance of the proposal of
the Taj Group of Hotels for the construction of a Five Star Hotel. The terms
and conditions of the lease were set out. On January 7, 1982, there was a joint
meeting of the Establishment and Finance sub-committees of the Zoo and it was
decided to recommend to the Committee of management that the demarcated area of
four acres may be relinquished in favour of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary
Services Department subject to the requirement that the Zoo will continue to
get the services and facilities in the existing structures until they were
reconstructed on the adjacent land. On January 11, 1982 the Managing Committee endorsed the
view of the sub-committees and this was communicated to the Government. On January 15, 1982, the Government of West Bengal
wrote to the Land Acquisition Officer, with 250 copies to the Taj Group of
Hotels, directing the Land Acquisition Officer to give possession of the land
to the Taj Group of Hotels subject to their later executing a proper long term
lease. It was mentioned in the letter that the construction of the hotel should
not be started till the lease deed was executed and registered. It was further
expressly stipulated as follows:"
The Alipur
Zoological Garden will continue to get the services and facilities from the
existing essential structures which fall within the demarcated in the annexed
sketch map till such time when these essential structures i.e. hospital and
operation theatre are reconstructed on the adjacent land occupied by the
Zoological Garden. A copy of the sketch map is enclosed for ready reference.
The India Hotels Co. Ltd. will find out in consultation with and with the
concurrence of the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Department of this
Government and the authorities of the Alipore Zoological
Garden the period of
time required for reconstruction of the essential structures standing on the
land proposed to be leased out to the said company. It will also let this
department have in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Animal
Husbandry and Veterinary Services Department of this Government and the Alipore
Zoological Garden a plan and estimate for reconstruction of the aforesaid
essential structures on the land adjacent to the land proposed to be leased
out, so that all these points are incorporated in the deed of lease between the
said company and the State Government in this Department for the said land
measuring four acres.
"As
agreed by the said company during the various meetings its representatives had
with various departments of this Government, the company will either place the
necessary fund in the hands of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services
Department or the Zoo Garden authorities as the case may be, for reconstruction
of the aforesaid essential structures or reconstruction the aforesaid essential
structures under its own supervision to the satisfaction of the the Zoo Garden
authorities or Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Department as the case
may be, such funds will in either case be advanced or deemed to be advanced by
the Company without interest to 251 be adjusted against dues of the State
Government in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease." It
is to be noted here that though the stipulation was that the cost of new
construction was to be initially met by Taj Group of Hotels and later to be
adjusted against the rent payable by Taj Group, the Taj Group later agreed to
waive such reimbursement. We are told that a total sum of Rs. 30 lakhs has now
been spent by Taj Group of Hotels in connection with the reconstruction. We are
also told that an extent of 288 square meters out of the plot given to the Taj
Group was carved out and given back for accommodating part of the reconstructed
structures. Pursuant to the letter dated January 15, 1982 possession was given to Taj Group
on January 16, 1982. Thereafter an expert Committee was
constituted to supervise the construction Of alternative facilities. At that
stage the writ petition out of which the present appeal arises was filed on February 26, 1982. Initially the relief sought was
primarily to restrain the Zoo authorities from giving effect to the two
resolutions dated January 7, 1982 and January 11, 1982 to hand over the four
acres to the Animal Husbandry Department of the Government.
Subsequent
to the filing of the Writ Petition, a lease deed was executed by the Taj Group
of Hotels in favour of the Government. The writ petition was therefore, amended
and a prayer for cancellation of the lease deed was added. First a learned
Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. On appeal, a Division Bench of the
High Court confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The original
petitioners are now before us having obtained special leave under Art. 136 of
the Constitution.
Before
adverting to the submission of the learned counsel, it is necessary, at this
juncture, to refer to certain correspondence. On April 23, 1982, Late Smt. Indira
Gandhi, Prime Minister of India wrote to Shri Jyothi Basu, Chief Minister of West
Bengal expressing the hope that he would not allow the Calcutta Zoo to suffer
in any manner and would leave in intact. She drew the Chief Minister's
attention to the fact that 'apart from' reduction in the already inadecuate
space for the Zoological Garden construction of a Five Star Multystoreyed
Building would disturb the inmates and adversely affect birds migration which
was a great attraction.' She also mentioned that the expert Committee of the
Indian Board for Wild Life also unanimously disapprove the idea. She queried
whether the Hotel could not be located elsewhere. For one reason or the other
the Prime Minister's letter did not reach the Chief Minister for a considerable
time. On August 21, 1982 the Chief Minister sent his reply pointing out that
the 252 four acres of land were agreed to be relinquished by the Committee of
management of the Zoological Garden on condition that alternate arrangements
were made for shifting the existing structures which were necessary for the Zoo
from the plot in question to the adjacent plot. The Chief Minister also
mentioned that there appeared to be some misconception that the plot in
question was a part of the Zoo Garden.
It was
not so. It was outside the Zoological Garden and separated from it by a 80-100
feet road. The Chief Minister assured the Prime Minister that the existing
structures would be relocated on the adjacent land and until that was done the
Zoo would continue to get their services and facilities from the existing
structures. The Chief Minister further drew the attention of the Prime Minister
to the fact that the hotel was likely to be a six storeyed one and would not be
the only tail building near the Zoo. There were already a large number of
high-rise residential buildings around the Zoo. No one had raised any objection
when those building were constituted. Another multistoreyed building which was
going to be the largest in the locality was under construction near the Zoo for
the Post and Telegraph Department. There was no report that the existing multistoreyed
buildings had any adverse affect on the migratory birds or the animals. The
Chief Minister also pointed out that the lessee and their experts on wild life
has assured them that in any case adequate precaution would be taken in regard
to illumination of the hotel and the layout of the surrendings so that no
disturbance would be caused to the flight path of the birds or animals. On
August 30, 1982, Shri J.R.D. TATA wrote to the Prime Minister pointing out that
their Hotel management had discussed the matter at length with representatives
of the Wild Life fund who were satisfied that the proposed hotel would cause no
disturbance to the birds. He had again gone thoroughly into the project with
special reference to its possible impact on the birds or environment and had
also visited Calcutta in that connection. He was satisfied that the project
could not possibly disturb birds using the lake or interfere with their free
movement. He gave his reasons as follows:
"The
four-acre plot assigned to the Hotel Company by the State Government is not
within the boundaries of the area belonging to the Zoological Gardens but on
the other side of Belvedere
Road, an important
thoroughfare parallel to the main boundary of the zoo and some 700 feet from
the main part of the lake.
It
forms part of an area belonging to the State Government which the Zoo
authorities have upto now been allowed to use to look after sick animals of the
Zoo and as labour quarters. It contains five small structures 253 including a
cage and a small veterinary laboratory or dispensary. The whole area is in sheckingly
unkept condition, most of it covered by a single or spear grass and other wild
growth.
"The
hotel is planned to be built away from the frontage of that plot of Belvadere Road and to be low rise structure, the Highest
point of which will not exceed 75 feet.
"Dr.
B. Biswas, a renowned ormithologist, who recently retired as Professor Emeritus
of the Zoological Survey of India, whom the Taj Management consulted, confirmed
that a 75-feet high building on the location would not worry birds landing on
the lake or climbing out of it. In fact, as the grounds of the zoo between the
lake and Belvedre Road are covered with high trees, the
climbing or descent angle which the birds have to negotiate to get over the
trees is already steeper that it will be between the lake and the proposed
hotel.
"As
regards the objection that arise from the hotel itself from vehicular traffic
to and from the hotel would disturb the birds, the hotel will be totally airconditioned
so that no noise will emanate from it, while noise from the heavy traffic on
Belvedere Road does not seem to have bothered the birds upto now. The
occasional additional cars plying into and out of the hotel could therefore
hardly trouble birds resting on the lake some 250 yards away.
"Regarding
the fear that lights emanating from the hotel or illuminate of signs of the
hotel would disorient the birds and possibly cause them to hit the building the
Management of the Hotel Company has taken a firm decision that there will be no
bright lights or noon signs emanating from the
hotel." Shri TATA further suggested that if necessary the Prime Minister
could appoint a small advisory Committee consisting of Shri Pushpa Kumar,
Director of the Hyderabad Zoo considered to be the finest zoo in India and one
of the best in Asia, Dr. Biswas, Mrs. Anne Wright and the Chairman of the
Managing Committee of the Zoological Garden to advise on the subject. On September 1, 1982, Smt. Indira Gandhi 254 wrote to Mr.
TATA expressing her happiness that the Hotel was not going to upset the Zoo
animals and welcoming his offer to help the State Government to improve the
Zoo's facilities.
Dr.
L.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellants made the following submission
before us; The Begumbari land was statutorily vested in the Managing Committee
of the Zoological Garden and that the Committee could not be divested by an
executive decision without proper procedure being followed. The land could not
be leased to the Taj Group of Hotels without inviting tenders from willing
persons and without complying with the requirements of paragraphs 166 and 167
of the Land Manual. In taking a decision to take away the land from the Zoo and
to lease the same to the Taj Group of Hotels, relevant considerations had been
ignored and irrelevant considerations had been taken into account. The decision
was taken without considering the impact on the Zoo and without consulting
various interested authorities and institutions. Several authorities and
institutions like the Director of the Zoo, the Managing Committee of the Zoo,
the Public Undertakings Committee of West Bengal, the Indian Wild Life Board,
leading ornithologists of the country, etc. had disapproved the taking away of
the land from the Zoo and leasing it to the Taj Group of Hotels.
These
persons and institutions had made several points, none of which had been taken
into account by the Government before it took the decision to lease the land.
The attention of the government was not focussed on these questions as evident
from the fact that the Cabinet Memorandum hardly refers to any of the
objections. The decision of the Government was also wrong as it was apparently
based on some assumptions which had been made without inquiry and verification.
The Chief Minister appeared to be under the impression that Dr. Biswas and
others were not opposed to the proposal. That was not correct. The construction
of a FiveStar Hotel was too heavy a cost to pay for the environmental detriment
caused by it. The terms on which the lease had been granted were detrimental to
the public revenue.
Shri Dipankar
Gupta, learned counsel for the Taj Group of Hotels and Shri Gooptu learned
counsel for the State of West
Bengal argued that
the former facilities available in the four-arce plot of land were not
displaced but were replaced and preserved by better facilities in the adjacent
plot of land. This was not to the disadvantage, but to the advantage of the Zoo
and its inmates. If the dumping ground and the burial ground had to be moved
elsewhere, it was certainly more hygienic and a matter for gratification rather
than for disgruntlement. Nor was there any obstruction to the flight of the
visiting birds as the 255 hotel was to be constructed at a distance of 700 feet
from the lake and was to rise to a maximum height of 75 feet, being a medium
rise and not a high rise building. On the other hand there was going to be an
environmental improvement of the area as the dumping ground, burial ground and
the semi-dilapidated buildings were to be replaced by a hotel surrounded by
broad roads and a very large number of trees proposed to be planted by the
hotel management. The landscaping was also designed to improve the ecology and
not to diminish it. There was no occassion for the Government to invite tenders
since the establishment of a Five-Star hotel was not something which could
practicably be undertaken by anyone in that fashion. It could only be done by
negotiation between the persons coming forward with proposals to establish Five
Star Hotels. The terms of the lease were not to the financial disadvantage of
the Government. The matter had been considered at great length by the
Committees of Secretaries appointed by the Government as well as by WEBCON and
they had recommended the acceptance the nett sales arrangement in preference to
the arrangement of rent based on land-cost.
We are
unable to agree with the submission of Dr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the
appellants, that the Government of West Bengal decided to grant the lease of
the Begumbari land to the Taj Group of Hotels without applying their mind to
very important relevant considerations. Much of the argument on this question
was based on the assumption that the decision to lease the Begumbari land to
the Taj Group of Hotels was taken on February 12, 1981. The decision taken by the Cabinet
on February 12, 1981 was merely to enter into
negotiations with the I.T.D.C. and the Taj Group of Hotels in regard to leasing
the Hastings House property and the Begumbari land. Negotiations with the
I.T.D.C. did not fructify while negotiations with the Taj Group of Hotels fruitioned.
It was on September 10,
1981 that the Cabinet
finally took the decision to lease the Begumbari land to the Taj Group. If
there was any decision on February 12, 1981 in regard to leasing the Begumbari
land it could at best to characterised as purely tentative and it could not by
any stretch of imagination be called an irrevocable or irreversible decision in
the sense that the Government was powerless to revoke it or that it had created
any rights in anyone so as to entitle that person to question any reversal of
the tentative decision. It was not a decision, if it was one, on which any
right could be hung. At that stage, the Government of West Bengal appeared to
have been on the search for two suitable plots of land which could be offered,
one to the I.T.D.C. and the other to the Taj Group of Hotels for the
construction of Five-Star Hotels. The record 256 shows that these two
chain-hoteliers wer the only hoteliers--and, they certainly were leading
hoteliers of the country--who had come forward to negotiate with the West
Bengal Government regarding the construction of Five-Star Hotels. The city of
Calcutta was noticeably lacking in the 'Five-Star Hotel amenity' to attract
tourist, local and foreign, and the Government of West Bengal was anxious to do
its best to promote the tourist industry which it was hoped, would provided
direct and indirect employment, earn foreign exchange and confer other economic
benefits to the people of the State. It is immaterial whether the move come
first from the Government or from the Taj Group. The Government was anxious
that more Five-Star Hotels should be established at Calcutta and the Taj Group was willing to
establish one.
They
wanted a suitable plot for its construction. It was the suggestion for the All
India Tourism Conference presided over by the Union Minister for Tourism that
State Government should make plots in good locations available at concessional
rates for construction of hotels in order to promote the Tourist Industry. It
was in pursuance of this general allIndia policy and, in particular, to fulfill
the feltneeds of Calcutta that the Government of West Bengal
was looking out for a suitable plot in a good location. They were clearly not
doing so at the behest of the Taj Group of Hotels. It does not require much
imagination to say that location is among the most important factors to be
considered when constructing a Five-Star Hotel, particularly if it is to promote
tourism. Obviously, one place is not as good as another and the place has to be
carefully chosen. After excluding Salt
Lake and after considering some
properties in Chowringhee, the Government felt that two properties, the
Hastings House property and the Begumbari property could be thought of as
meeting the requirements. Since the Hastings House property, was not found
acceptable by the Taj Group, it was decided to negotiate with them in regard to
construction of a Five-Star Hotel on the Begumbari land. We find it difficult
to treat this decision to negotiate with the Taj Group in regard to
construction of a Five-Star Hotel on the Begumbari land as a final decision to
part with the land.
The
prominent use to which the land was evidently put at the time was as a dumping
ground for refuse and rubbish and for growing fodder for elephants. This was
noticed and mentioned in the note prepared for the consideration of the Cabinet
and it was suggested that separate provision would have to be made for them. Therefore,
it is clear that it was not forgotten that if the land was to be allotted to
the Taj Group, separate provision would have to be made for whatever use the
land was being put to them. The Government was not unmindful of the interests
and requirements of the Zoological Garden though at that stage no detailed
investigations had 257 apparently been made. The decision of the Government was
not one of those mysterious decisions taken in the shrouded secrecy of
Ministerial Chambers. It appears to have been taken openly with no attempt at
secrecy. The decision, perhaps proposal would be a more appropriate word, was
known to the Public Undertakings Committee in less then two days.
They
expressly refer to it in their report dated February 14, 1981 made two days
after the Cabinet decision. By Twenty-first February it was public knowledge
and news of the proposal was published in the daily newspapers. We have no
evidence or any immediate or subsequent public protest but there were certain
objections from some circles. Earlier we have extracted the report of Public
Undertakings Committee.
The
substance of the objection of the Public Undertakings Committee was that the
facilities available in the Begumbari land would be left unprovided for if the
land was given to the proposed hotel. The available facilities were mentioned
as Staff quarters, hospital for animals, burial ground for animals, fodder for
elephants etc. It was also said that if the hospital and the burial ground were
to be shifted to the main garden it would result in an unhealthy atmosphere for
the animals and the zoo and would detract from the beauty of the Zoo Garden.
The assumption of the Public Undertakings Committee that the hospital and the
burial ground were to be shifted to the main garden was baseless, since, there
was never any such proposal. A modern zoo hospital for animals has been
constructed in the remaining extent of Begumbari land replacing the old
hospital which was housed in a semidilapidated building. Surely, there should
be no complaint about it. It has also been proposed to shift the burial ground
elsewhere. That would be most desirable from any point of view. Fodder for
elephants should not again be considered to be problem. It would be stretching
credibility to suggest that it is necessary to grow fodder in the Begumbari
land to feed the elephants in the zoo. Fodder may be bought and brought from
elsewhere. The Chief Town Planner who was deputed to visit the site at the
request of the Secretary, Metropolitan Development Department and who visited
the Zoo accompanied by the Director of the Zoo reported that 2 to 21/2 acres of
land might be made available for the hotel. If four acres of land were given,
he expressed the apprehension that the hospital and the dumping ground would
have to be moved elsewhere. The hospital as we have already mentioned has since
been conveniently and comfortably accommodated in a new building and the
proposal is to move the dumping ground elsewhere. The Managing Committee of the
Zoo also initially expressed its opposition to the proposal to construction
hotel on land belonging to the Zoo. The Committee's objections were two-fold:
(1) A muliti-storied building in the vicinity of the Zoo will disturb the 258
animals and the ecological balance and will affect the bird migration (2) the
land was already used for various purposes, that is, fodder cultivation, burial
ground for animals, hospital, operation theatre, quarantine area, postmartom
room and nursery. It would be impossible, according to the Committee to accommodate
these essential services within the campus of the main Zoo. The objections of
the Managing Committee were first brought to the notice of the Minister for
Metropolitan Development who submitted a note to the Chief Minister pointing
out that even if four acres of land out of the eight acres of Begumbari land
was given to the Taj Group, there would still remain sufficient land for
accommodating the existing facilities. The Chief Minister considered the
objections and noted that if further facilities were necessary for the Zoo,
Government would provide them. Thereafter the Managing Committee reversed its
earlier stand. and agreed to the proposal on the assurance that adjacent land
and matching grants would be given to the Zoo. We have earlier referred to the
letter of the Director of the Zoo dated June 29, 1981 addressed to the
Secretary, Animal Husbandary Department where he expressed his opposition to
the proposal on the ground that the Zoo could not be run for a single day
without the essential services which were being provided in the four acres of
land proposed to be given for the hotel. This again, we notice, is based on the
assumption that there was going to be no provision for those facilities once
the hotel was constructed. We have already pointed out that this assumption is
wholly incorrect. The letter of the Director of the Zoo was followed by a note
by the Secretary of the Animal Husbandry Department suggesting that the
practical problems of the Zoo should receive detailed consideration and that
the immediate transfer of the land to the hotel would mean discontinuance of
the existing facilities. In the face of all this material, we do not see how it
can be seriously contended that the interests and the requirements of the Zoo
were totally ignored and not kept in mind when the decision was taken to lease
the land to the Taj Group of Hotels. The Chief Minister's attention was
expressly drawn to the Managing Committee's first Resolution expressing its
opposition to the proposal to give the land for the construction of a hotel and
detailing the objections and the Chief Minister had expressly noted that all
facilities necessary for the Zoo would be provided by the Government. The
assurance was also conveyed to the Managing Committee through the amissaries of
the Chief Minister. There were inter-departmental notings which we presume must
also have been brought to the notice of the Chief Minister. We find it
impossible to agree with the stricture that the Chief Minister turned a blind
eye and a dent ear to the interests and the requirements of the Zoo and went
about the question 259 of allotment of land to the Taj Group of Hotels
determined to give the land to them and with a mind closed to everything else.
We cannot do so in the face of the assurance of the Chief Minister that
facilities would be provided for the Zoo and if, as the saying goes, the proof
of the pudding is in the eating, the Chief Minister's assurances are found
reflected in the lease executed by the Taj Group of Hotels in favour of the Government
of West Bengal. In Clause 25 of the lease dead, it is expressly stipulated that
the lessee shall reconstruct the structures now existing on the demised land
(as found in the sketch accompanying the deed) on the adjacent plot of land and
that the plan, design, lay out, estimates, etc. of the proposed new structures
should be supplied by the Alipur Zoological Garden to the lessee. The
reconstructed structures were required to be equal be the existing ones in
floor area, but it was open to them to increase the floor area by agreement.
The amount expended by the lessee towards the reconstruction of the structures
was to be adjusted without interest against the dues of the lessee to the
Government. The Alipore Zoological Garden authorities were required to vacate
the existing structure within a period of six months which was also the period
stipulated for raising the new constructions. We may add here that the Taj
Group of Hotels have spent a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs towards the cost of the new
constructions, but that they have waived their fight to claim reimbursement
from the Government. An affidavit to that effect was also filed before the
trial court. Thus we see that the contention of the appellants that the
Government of West Bengal had no thought to spare for the facilities which were
till then being provided in the Begumbari land is unsustainable. The learned
counsel for the appellants urged that the second Cabinet Memorandum dated
September 9, 1981 on which date the Government took the final decision to grant
the lease made no mention of the needs and interests of the Zoo or the
facilities provided in the Begumbari land for the Zoo. It is true that there is
no reference to these matters in the second Cabinet Memorandum. But that is for
the obvious reason that the matter had already been the subject matter of
inter-department discussion and communication. The Managing Committee of the
Zoo which had initially opposed the proposal had also come round and had agreed
to the proposal.
It
was, therefore, thought that there was no need to mention the needs and
interests of the Zoo which were already well known and had also received
consideration.
It was
suggested that the Zoo itself required to be expended and there was, therefore,
no land which could be spared. The land allotted to the hotel was, as we have
seen, not used for the main purpose of the 260 zoo and was not in fact part of
the main Zoological Garden.
The
Government had already in mind a proposal to start a subsidiary Zoo in an
extent of about 200 acres of land in the outskirts of Calcutta. This has been
mentioned in the various notings made from time to time. We have no doubt that
the Government was quite alive to the need for expansion of the zoo when they
decided to grant four acres of Begumbari land which was not used for the main
purpose of the zoo for the construction of a Five-Star hotel.
The
next question is whether the Government was alive to the ecological
considerations, particularly to the question of the migratory birds when they
took the decision of lease the land to the Taj Group of Hotels. Again
sustenance to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is sought
to be drawn from the circumstance that neither of the two Cabinet Memoranda
dated January 7, 1981 and September 9, 1981 referred to the migratory birds. It is wrong to
think that everything that is not mentioned in the Cabinet Memoranda did not
receive consideration by the Government. We must remember that the process of
choosing and allotting the land to the Taj Group of Hotels took merely two
years, during the course of which objections of various kinds were raised from
time to time. It was not necessary that every one of these objections should
have been mentioned and considered in each of the Cabinet Memoranda. The question
of the migratory birds was first raised in the resolution of the Managing
Committee dated June
11, 1981. This
resolution was forwarded to the Chief Minister and considered by his as evident
from the note of the Chief Minister and the susequent reversal of the Managing
Committee's resolution at the instance of the Chief Minster and on his
assurances. The Chief Minister was certainly aware of the question of the
migratory birds before it was finally decided to allot the Begumbari land to
the Taj Group of Hotels. That the Government was aware of the dissension based
on the alleged obstruction likely to be caused by a mulit-storeyed building to
the flight of the migratory birds appears from the letter of the Chief Minister
to the Prime Minister. In this letter, the Chief Minister pointed out that
there were already in existence a number of multistoreyed buildings all around
the Zoological Garden, but there was no report that they had any adverse effect
on the migratory birds or the animals. He also pointed out that all precautions
would be taken in the matter of illumination of the hotel and lay out of the
surroundings so that no disturbance would be caused to the flight path of the
birds or animals. Shri J.R.D. TATA, on behalf of the Taj Group of Hotels, also
wrote to the Prime Minister assuring her that the hotel management had
discussed the matter at length with a representatives of the Wild 261 Life Fund
who, after discussion, had been satisfied that the proposed hotel would cause
no disturbance to the birds. He further assured her that he had himself gone
thoroughly into the project with special reference to the possible impace on
the birds and the environment and had satisfied himself that project would not
caused any disturbance to the birds or their free movement. The reasons given
by him have already been extracted earlier by us from his letter. He pointed
out that the four-acre plot was not within the main Zoological Garden, but was
separated from it by the Belvedere
Road which was an
important thoroughfare in the city. It was about 700 feet from the main part of
the lake. The hotel was porposed to be built away from the frontage of the plot
in Belvedere Road and was to be a low-rise structure,
the highest point of which would not exceed 75 feet. This was mentioned
apparently to indicate that the building would not come within the trajectory
of the birds. He mentioned that Dr. Biswas, a renowned ornithologist had also
been consulted by the Taj Management and he had also confirmed that a 75 feet
building would not interfere with the landing or climbing out of the birds from
the lake. He further mentioned that the grounds of the Zoo between the lake and
the Belvedere Road were covered with tall trees and that the birds negotiating
the trees would have to fly at the steeper angle than it would be necessary to
negotiate the proposed hotel.
The
vehicular traffic on Belvedere
Road which was also
heavy did not bother the birds and the slight increase of the vehicular traffic
consequent on the construction of the hotel was also not likely to bother them
either. It was also pointed out that particular care would be taken in the
matter of illumination of the hotel so that bright lights or neor signs
emanating from the hotel would not disturb the birds and animals.
The
learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to a letter written by
Dr. Biswas to the Statesman dated August 3, 1982 in which he disowned having made any statement to a press
correspondent by name, Bachi J Karkaria that the hotel posed no threat at all
to the migratory flight path. He explained that what he meant to say was that
migratory birds visiting the Zoo lake choose places to the east and south-east
of the lake for nocturnal feeding and that their flight to the nocturnal
feeding grounds in the marshes would be affected, if the proposed hotel was a
high-rise building. Apart from the fact that he did not mention what he had in
mind when he spoke of a high-rise building, the point made by Shri J.R.D. TATA
in his letter to the Prime Minister that birds flying in or flying out had to
fly at a very steep angle while negotiating the tall trees between the lake and
Belvedere Road, an angle much steeper than the angle at which they would have
to fly 262 to negotiate a 75 feet tall building, such as, the proposed hotel,
remains unanswered. Be it noted that Belvedere Road is to the east of the lake. We may also note here a point
made by Dr. Biswas in his letter to the Statesman that there were possible
health hazards in the re-location of the Zoo hospital, quarantine area and
post-mortem room in the area adjacent to the staff quarters. He is no expert on
the subject of public health and no one has complained that there would be any
hazard to the health of those living in the staff quarters by the re-location Of
the hospital, etc.
We are
satisfied that the question of obstruction which may be caused to migratory
birds did not go unnoticed by the Government before the deciSion to lease the
land was taken and we are also satisfied that the building of the proposed
hotel is not likely to cause any obstruction to the flight path of the
migratory birds.
We may
refer here to the resolution of the Wild Life Board to which a reference was
made by the Prime Minister in her letter to the Chief Minister. Our attention
was drawn by the learned counsel for appellants to the presence of two renowned
experts at the meeting of the Wild Life Fund on September 25, 1981. They were Shri Pushp Kumar, Director of the
Hyderabad Zoo and Mrs. Anne Wright. The subject which was discussed by the
Expert Committee on September
25, 1981 was
"Construction of a Five-Star Hotel within the premises of Alipore Zoo in Calcutta." The proceedings of the
Committee were recorded as follows:
"Director,
Geological Survey of India explained the whole matter and pointed out the utter
impropriety of the decision of the Government of West Bengal to construct a FiveStar
Hotel within the premises of Alipore Zoo in Calcutta. The Committee agreed
fully with this view and desired that this matter should be taken up
immediately by the Central Government with the State Government." This
record of the proceedings shows that the Experts Committee of the Wild Life
Fund was proceeding on the fundamental wrong assumption that the hotel was
proposed to be constructed "within the premises of Alipore Zoo". The
resolution was justified on the assumed premises but unfortunately it was
rounded on a wrong premises. Later Mrs. Anne Wright appeared to be satisfied
with what was finally done as evident from her letter dated November 19, 1983 to Mr. J.R.D. TATA, a copy of which
has been placed before us.
Bearing
in mind the proper approach that we have to make when 263 questions of ecology
and environment are raised, an approach which we have mentioned at the outset,
we are satisfied that the facts and circumstances brought out by the appellants
do not justify an inference that the construction of the proposed hotel in the Begumbari
land would interfere in any manner with the animals in the Zoo and the birds
arriving at the Zoo or otherwise disturb the ecology: The proposed hotel is a
Garden-hotel and there is perhaps every chance of the ecology and environment
improving as a result of planting numerous trees all around the proposed hotel
and the removal of the burial ground and dumping ground for rubbish.
Dr. Singhvi
cited before us the well known decisions of this Court in Rohtas Industries
Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal, [1969] SCR 108; Barium Chemicals v. A.G. Rana, [1972] 2
SCR 752 and Mohinder Singh Gill v. Central Election Commission, [1978] 2 SCR
273 to urge that even an administrative decision must be arrived at after
taking into account all relevant considerations and eschewing irrelevant
considerations and that the reasons for an order must find a place in the order
itself and those reasons cannot be supplemented later by fresh reasons in the
shape of an affidavit or otherwise. The submission was that neither the Cabinet
memorandum of January
7, 1981 nor the
Cabinet Memorandum of September
9, 1981 revealed that
relevant considerations had been taken into account. What was not said in
either of the Cabinet Memoranda, it was said, could not later be supplemented
by considerations which were never present to the mind of the decision making
authority. We do not agree with the submission of Dr. Singhvi.
The
proposition that a decision must be arrived at after taking into account all
relevant considerations. eschewing all irrelevant considerations cannot for a
moment be doubted. We have already pointed out that relevant considerations
were not ignored and, indeed, were taken into account by the Government of West
Bengal. It is not one of those cases where the evidence is first gathered and a
decision is later arrived at one fine morning and the decision is incorporated
in a reasoned order. This is a case where discussions have necessarily to
stretch over a long period of time. Several factors have to be independently
and separately weighed and considered. This is a case where the decision and
the reasons for the decisions can only be gathered by looking at the entire
course of events and circumstances stretching over the period from the
initiation of the proposal to the taking of the final decision. It is important
to note that unlike Mohinder Singh Gill's case where that Court was dealing
with a Statutory Order made by a statutory functionary who could not therefore,
be allowed to supplement the grounds of this order by later explanations, the
present is a 264 case where neither a statutory functions nor a statutory
functionary is involved but the transaction bears a commercial though public
character which can only be settled after protracted discussion, clarification
and consultation with all interested persons. The principle of Mohinder Singh
Gill's case has no application to the factual situation here.
It was
said that the principles of Natural Justice had not been observed and that
those who are most interested in the Zoological Garden were not heard in the
matter before the decision was taken. We do not think that anyone can have a
justifiable grievance on this score. The proposal to lease the Begumbari land
was public knowledge as we have seen.
Such
as those as were really interested in the matter like the Managing Committee of
the Zoological Garden and the Director of the Zoo did have their say in the
matter. The Public Undertakings Committee in its report discussed the matter
and invited the Government's attention to various factors. The matter was
further discussed on the floor of the Legislative Assembly. It is impossible to
agree with the submission that there was any failure to observe principles of
Natural Justice.
One of
the submissions of Dr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellants, was that
the Bengal Public Parks Act, 1904 vested the Begumbari land in the Managing
Committee of the Zoological Garden and that what had become statutorily vested
in the Committee could not be divested by an executive fiat. We agree that an
Act of the Legislature cannot be undone by a mere act of the executive. But
what is the position here? Did the Act deal with the land at all? The Begumbari
land was given to the Zoological Garden by the Government in 1880. We do not
have the original grant before us. The entire file of the Government relating
to the Begumbari land was produced before the Trial Court without any attempt
at withholding any document. The records were before the High Court and there
are now before us two copies of a letter written on July 7, 1880 by the
Assistant Secretary to the Government of Bengal in the Public Works Department
to Mr. L. Schwandler, Honorary Secretary, Zoological Garden conveying to him
the sanction of the Lt. Governor for the transfer of the land to the east of
Belvedere Road, known as Begumbari land to the charge of the Committee of the
Zoological Garden on the terms agreed to by the Committee in their letter dated
April 23rd. The conditions were mentioned as:
"1st.
That the land is to be used for the purpose of acclimatization only. 265
2nd.
That Oarnivors are not to be kept on any part of it, on any account.
3rd. That
the grounds are to be kept clear and neat.
4th. That
the land must be restored to the Government if hereafter required.
The
Zoological Garden Committee being reimbursed for any expenditure they may have
incurred in building there." Dr. Singhvi questioned the authenticity of
the documents and also objected to their reception in evidence on the ground
that no foundation had been laid for the reception of secondary evidence. We
must straightaway say that no objection was taken either before the single
judge or before the Division Bench either to the authenticity or to the
admissibility of the documents. We do not for a moment doubt the genuineness of
the two documents which have been produced from old official records. What is
important is that the Managing Committee of the Zoological Garden never doubted
the authenticity of the documents nor was any question ever raised to suggest
that the terms of the grant were other than those mentioned in the letters. We
are satisfied that for the purposes of the present case, we will be justified
in proceeding on the basis that the land which was undoubtedly Government land,
to start with, was given to the Zoological Garden upon the terms set out in the
two letters.
One of
the terms was that the land should be restored to the Government whenever
required. Another term was that the Zoological Garden Committee would be
suitably compensated for any expenditure incurred by it on the construction of
any building on the land.
The
further submission of Dr. Singhvi was that whatever might have been the terms
of the grant in favour of the Zoological Garden, the Bengal Parks Act, 1904,
vested the land in favour of the Zoological Garden and there was no way by
which the Government could divest the Zoological Garden of the land except by a
procedure known to the law such as acquisition or requisition. We are unable to
find any substance in the argument. The Bengal Parks Act, 1904 was enacted
"to protect public parks and gardens in Bengal from injury and to secure the public from molestation
annoyance while resorting to such parks and gardens." The Act was made
applicable to the public parks and gardens mentioned in the schedule. The
Zoological Garden, Alipore was one such park.
Section
3 unables the State Government, by notification in the official Gazette
"to declare that any specified land, bridge or pontoon shall, for the
purposes of this Act, be deemed to be included 266 in any park." Section 4
enables the Government to make rules for the management, and preservation of
any park, and for regulating the use thereof by the public. In particular, the
rules may regulate the admission into the park of persons, animals and
vehicles, prohibit the causing of any manner of injury to the trees, plants,
monuments, furniture etc. in the park, prohibit shooting, bird-testing etc.
prohibit or regulate fishing or boating, prohibit bathing, or the pollution of
water by any other means, prohibit the grazing of horses or ponies, prohibit
the teasing or annoying of animals or birds kept in the park, prohibit the
commission of any nuisance, or the molestation or annoyance of any person
resorting to the park etc. etc. From the Preamble and the provisions of the
Act, it is clear that the Act is intended to protect the inmates and the property
of the park from injury by persons resorting to the park and to protect persons
resorting to the park from molestation or annoyance by others. The Act is aimed
at protecting the park and its visitiors from injury and annoyance by
despoilers and marauders. The Act has nothing whatever to do with the vesting
of any property in the parks. There is infact no provision which deals with the
vesting of property in a park. Section 3 enables the State Government to extend
by a notification, the boundaries of a park but that can only be for the
purposes of the Act and not for the purpose of vesting or creating any title in
a property. If a piece of adjacent land, for example, is taken on lease for a
specified number of years by the park and included in the park by a
notification under sec. 3, it does not mean that the land has become the
property of the park; it only means that the various things, the doing of which
is regulated or prohibited by the Act and the rules will not be done or will be
regulated on the adjacent land also. We do not think that the provisions of the
Bengal Public Parks Act have any relevance to the question of the power of the
Government to transfer the Begumbari land to the Taj Group of Hotels.
One of
the arguments strenuously pressed by Dr. Singhvi was that, even if it was
assumed that the Government had the power to transfer the land, the Government
did not have the power to deal with the land in any manner that they liked.
Certain
norms and procedures had to be observed and nothing could be done which would
result in loss to the public exchequer. The Bengal Land Manual prescribed the
procedure to be followed in the matter of transferring land belonging to the
Government. That procedure had to be observed. In any case, it was necessary either
to held a public auction or to invite tenders atleast from the limited class of
persons interested in utilising the land for the purpose for which the land was
proposed to be transferred. The learned 267 counsel invited our attention to
several decisions of the court: Rash Bihari Panda v. State of Orissa, [1969] 3
SCR 374; R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority, [1979] 3 SCR 1014; Kasturi
Lal Laxmi Reddy v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, [1980] 3 SCR 1338; State of Haryana
v. Jage Ram, [1983] 4 SCC 56; Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, [1985] 3
SCC 26 and Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, [1986] 3 SCC
391.
The
West Bengal Land Management Manual, 1977 is published under the authority of
the Board of Revenue, West
Bengal. Like similar
volumes going by whatever name, published by the Boards of Revenue of other
States, the West Bengal Land Management Manual also is compendium of
(1) statutes
and rules framed either by the Government or by the Board of Revenue pursuant
to a statutory power conferred on them;
(2)
Orders issued by the Government from time to time; and
(3)
Orders, circulars, instructions and memoranda issued by the Board of Revenue
from time to time.
All
these are arranged in such a manner that reference to them by the officials of
the Revenue hierarchy is easy. Statutes and statutory orders have, no doubt, to
be obeyed. It does not mean that other orders, instructions, etc. may be
departed from in an individual case, if applicable to the facts. They are not
to be ignored until amended. The Government or the Board may have the power the
amend these orders and instructions, but nonetheless they must be obeyed so
long as they are in force and are applicable.
The
appellants invited our attention to paragraphs 165, 166 and 167 of the Land
Management Manual and urged that the rules laid down by the provisions have
been ignored by the Government of West Bengal. These provisions of the Land
Management Manual do not appear to have anything to do with the transfer and
use of the land in the manner proposed, in which the State also has a vital
stake apart from the mere raising of revenue for the State. Paragraphs 165, 166
and 167 deal with simple cases of creation of non-agricultural tenancies by way
of long term leases. They generally deal with land which is at the disposal of
the Government as waste or surplus land and are intended to secure the best
revenue for the State. They do not deal with cases of transfer of land for a
specific socio-economic object, where, the securing of immediate revenue is not
the principal object but other special and economic benefits are sought.
In
pursuing the socio-economic objective is the State bound to 268 invite tenders
or held a public auction? To answer this question, we may refer to the cases
cited at the Bar.
In
Rash Bihari Panda v. State of Orissa (supra)
the Government offered the option to purchase kendu leaves to certain old
contractors on the same terms as in the previous year. Realising that the
scheme of offering to renew contracts with the old licences on the same terms
was open to objection, the Government changed its policy and formulated a new
scheme by which offers were invited from intending purchasers of Kendu leaves
but the invitation was restricted to these individuals who had carried out the
contracts in the previous year without default and to the satisfaction of the
Government. The Court held that the right to make offers being open to a
limited class of persons, it effectively shut out all other persons carrying on
trade in Kendu leaves and also new entrants into that business. It was,
therefore, ex-facie discriminatory and imposed unreasonable restrictions upon
the right of persons other than existing contractors to carry on business. It
is to be seen that in the present case no one has come forward alleging that he
has been discriminated against and his fundamental right to carry on business
had been affected. The very nature of the construction and establishment of a
Five Star Hotel is indicative of a requirement of expertise and sound financial
position on the part of those who might offer to construct and establish them.
The decision taken by the All-India Tourism Council was an open decision
well-known to everyone in the hotel business. Yet no one except the I.T.D.C.
and the Taj Group of Hotels had come forward with any proposal.
We
have it in the record that the Oberoi Group of Hotels already had a Five Star
Hotel in Calcutta while the Welcome Group of Hotels were
making their own Private negotiations and arrangements for establishing a Five
Star Hotel. In the circumstances, particularly in the absence of any leading
hoteliers coming forward, the Government of West Bengal was perfectly justified
in entering into negotiations with the I.T.D.C. and the Taj Group of Hotels
instead of inviting tenders.
In
R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (supra). Bhagwatti, J. speaking
for the Court observed that the activities of the Government had a public
element and if it entered into any contract, it must do so fairly without
discrimination and without unfair procedure. Whenever the Government dealt with
the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing
quotas or licences or granting other forms of larges, the Government could not
act arbitrarily at its sweet-will but must act in conformity with standards or
norms without being arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. If 269 the Government
departed from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases its action
was liable to be struck down unless it could be shown that the departure was
not arbitrary but was based on some valid principle which was not irrational,
unreasonable or dicriminatory. In the present case as earlier explained by us
direct negotiation with these who had come forward with proposals to construct
Five Star Hotels was without doubt the most reasonable and rational way of
proceeding in the matter rather than inviting tenders or holding public
auction. There was nothing discrminatory in the procedure adopted since no
other leading hotlier had shown any inclination to come forward.
Tenders
and Auction were most impractical in the circumstances.
In Kasturilal
Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra), Bhagwati, J. again, speaking for the Court reiterated what had
said earlier in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (supra). He
proceeded to say, "The Government, therefore, cannot, for example, give a
contract or sell or lease out its property for a considerations less than the
highest that can be obtained for it, unless of course there are other
considerations which render it reasonable and in public interest to do so. Such
considerations may be that some Directive Principle is sought to be advanced on
implemented or that the contract or the property is given not with a view to
earning revenue but for the purpose of carrying out a welfare scheme for the
benefit of a particular group or section of people deserving it or that the
person who has offered a higher consideration is not otherwise fit to be given
the contract or the property. We have referred to those considerations only
illustratively, for there may be an infinite variety of considerations which
may have to be taken into account by the Government in formulating its policies
and it is on a total evaluation of various considerations which have weighed
with the Government in taking a particular action, that the Court would have to
decide whether the action of the Government is reasonable and in public
interest. But one basic principle which must guide the Court in arriving at its
determination on this question is that there is always a presumption that the
Governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the
party challenging its validity to show that is wanting in reasonableness or is
not 270 informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to
be discharged to the satisfaction of the Court by proper and adequate material.
The Court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is
unreasonable or without public interest because, as we said above, there are a
large number of policy considerations which must necessarily weigh with the
Government in taking action and therefore the Court would not strike down
governmental action as invalid on this ground, unless it is clearly satisfied
that the action is unreasonable or not in public interest. But where it is so
satisfied, it would be the plainest duty of the Court under the Constitution to
invalidate the governmental action." With reference to the particular
facts of the case, it was stated, "The argument of the petitioners was
that at the auctions held in December, 1978, January 1979 and April 1979, the
price of resin realised was as much as Rs. 484, Rs. 520 and Rs. 700 per quintal
respectively and when the market price was so high, it was improper and
contrary to public interest on the part of the state to sell resin to the
second respondents at the rate of Rs. 320 per quintal under the impugned order.
This argument, plausible though it may seem is fallacious because it does not
take into account the policy of the state not to allow export of resin outside
its territories but to allot in only for use in factories set up within the
State. It is obvious that, in view of this policy, no resin would be auctioned
by the State and there would be no question of sale of resin in the open market
and in this situation, it would be totally irrelevant to import the concept of
market price with reference to which the adequacy of the price charged by the
State to the second respondents could be judged. If the State were simply
selling resin, there can be no doubt that the State must endeavour to obtain
the highest price subject, of course, to any other over-riding considerations
of public interest and in that event, its action in giving resin to a private
individual at a lesser price would be arbitrary and contrary to public
interest. But, where the State has, as a matter of policy, stopped selling
resin to outsiders and decided to allot it only to industries set up within the
State for the purpose of encouraging industrialisation, there can be no scope
for 271 complaint that the State is giving resin at a lesser price than that
which could be obtained in the open market. The yardstick of price in the open
market would be wholly inept, because in view of the State Policy, there would
be no question of any resin being sold in the open market. the object of the
State in such a case is not to earn revenue from sale of resin, but to promote
the setting up of industries within the State." And again, "If the
State were giving tapping contract simpliciter there can be no doubt that the
State would have to auction or invite tenders for securing the highest price,
subject, of course, to any other relevant overriding considerations of public
weal or interest. but in a case like this where the State is allocating
resources such as water, power raw materials etc. for the purpose of
encouraging setting up of industries within the State, we do not think the
State is bound to advertise and tell the people that it wants a particular
industry to be set up within the State and invite those interested to come up
with proposals for the purpose. The State may choose to do so, if it thinks fit
and in a given situation, it may even turn to be advantageous for the State to
do so, but if any private party comes before the State and offers to set up an
industry, the State would not be committing breach of any constitutional or
legal obligation if it negotiates with such party and agrees to provide resources
and other facilities for the purpose of setting up the industry." The
observations of the Court in the light of the facts therein appear to fully
justify the action of the West Bengal Government in the present case not
inviting tenders or not holding public auction.
In
State of Haryana v. Jage Ram (supra), it was held
that it was not open to the Excise Authorities to pick and choose a few persons
only as the recipients of the notice of reauction. There was no explanation as
to how they came to be chosen and what their status and standing in the trade
were to justify the choice. The conduct of the authorities was thought not
above suspicion. We have already explained why the choice of the Taj Group of
Hotels must be held to be beyond suspicion and above reproach.
272 In
Ram & Shyam Company v. State of Haryana (supra) dealing with the question of disposal of State property Desai,
J. speaking for the court said, "Let us put into focus the clearly
demarcated approach that distinguishes the use and disposal of private property
and socialist property. Owner of private property may deal with it in any
manner he likes without causing injury to any one else. But the socialist or if
that word is jarring to some, the community or further the public property has
to be dealt with for public purpose and in public interest. The marked
difference lies in this that while the owner of private property may have a
number of considerations which may permit him to dispose of his property for a
song. On the other hand, disposal of public property partakes the character of
a trust in that in its disposal there should be nothing hanky panky and that it
must be done at the best price so that larger revenue coming into the coffers
of the State administration would serve public purpose viz. the welfare State
may be able to expand its beneficial activities by the availability of larger
funds. This is subject to one important limitation that socialist property may
be disposed at the price lower than the market price or even for a token price
to achieve some defined constitutionally recongnised public purpose, one such
being to achieve the goals set out in Part IV of the Constitution. But where
disposal is for augmentation of revenue and nothing else, the State is under an
obligation to secure the best market price available in a market economy. An
owner of private property need not auction it nor is he bound to dispose it of
at a current market price. Factors such as personal attachment, or affinity,
kinship, empathy, religious sentiment or limiting the choice to whom he may be
willing to sell, may permit him to sell the property at a song and without
demure. A welfare State as the owner of the public property has no such freedom
while disposing of the public property. A welfare State exists for the largest
good of the largest number more so when it proclaims to be a socialist State
dedicated to eradication of poverty. All its attempt must be to obtain the best
available price while disposing of its property because the greater the revenue,
the welfare activities will get a fillip and shot in the arm. Financial
constraint may weaken the tempo of activities.
Such an
273 approach serves the larger public purpose of expanding welfare activities
primarily for which Constitution envisages the setting up of a welfare
State." In Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra) it
was observed that public officials entrusted with the care of 'public property'
were required to show exemplary vigilance. The Court indicated that the best
method of disposal of such property was by public auction and not by private
negotiation. That was a case where land belonging to a Math was sold by private
trenty for Rs. 20 lakhs when there were people ready to purchase the land for Rs.
80 lakhs. The difference between sale of land and other readily saleable
commodities and the allotment of land for establishing a modern Five-Star Hotel
of International standard is so obvious as to need no more explanation.
On a
consideration of the relevant cases cited at the bar the following propositions
may be taken as well established. State-owned or public-owned property is not
to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive.
Certain
precepts and principles have to be observed. Public interest is the paramount
consideration. One of the methods of securing the public interest, when it is
considered necessary to dispose of a property, is to sell the property by
public auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is
not an invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling
reasons necessitating departure from the rule but then the reasons for the
departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination.
Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Nothing should
be done which gives an appearance of bias. jobbery or nepotism.
Applying
these tests, we find it impossible to hold that the Government of West Bengal,
did not act with probity in not inviting tenders or in not holding a public
auction but negotiating straightaway at arm's length with the Taj Group of
Hotels. , The last and final submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants relates to the commercial and financial aspects of the lease.
According to the learned counsel, the 'nett sales' method of calculating the
compensation payable to the Government for the lease of the land had totally
sacrificed the State's interests. He submits that if the market value of the
land had been fairly determined and the rent had been stipulated at a
percentage of that value, the return to the Government would have been much
higher. We do not think that there is any 274 basis for any genuine criticism.
The 'nett sales' method appears to be a fairly well known method adopted in
similar situations. This was what was recommended by WEBCON, the consulting
agency of the West Bengal Government which submitted a detailed report on the
subject. This was also the recommendation of the Committee of Secretaries who
went into the matter in depth. Even to lay persons like us who are no financial
experts, it appears that the 'nett sales' method does and the
rent-based-on-market-value method does not take into account the appreciating
value of land, the inflationary tendency of prices and the profit orientation.
Even on a prima facie, there appears to be nothing wrong or objectionable in
the 'nett sales' method. It is profit oriented and appears to be in the best
interests of the Government of West Bengal.
On a
consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied
that the Government of West Bengal acted perfectly bona fide in granting the
lease of Begumbari land to the Taj Group of Hotels for the construction of a
Five-Star hotel in Calcutta. The Government of West Bengal did not fail to take
into account any relevant consideration. Its action was not against the
interests of the Zoological Garden or not in the best interests of the animal
inmates of the zoo or migrant birds visiting the zoo.
The
financial interests of the State were in no way sacrificed either by not
inviting tenders or holding a public auction or by adopting the 'nett sales'
method. In the result, the judgments of the learned single judge and the
Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court are affirmed and the appeal is
dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we do not desire to award any
costs.
KHALID,
J: The tenacity with which this expensive public interest litigation was
pursued by the petitioners, before the learned Single Judge and a Division
Bench of the Calcutta High Court and before this Court is commendable. But,
after hearing the lengthy arguments advanced, I ask myself the question whether
this exercise could not have been avoided.
Originally
the writ petition was filed by five persons.
The
supporting affidavit to the writ petition was sworn to by the first petitioner
who described himself as a trade unionist. Petitioner No. 2 & 3 are the
life members of the Zoo and the remaining two, bona fide residents of Greater
Calcutta and lovers of wild life. The same five persons figured as appellants
before the Division Bench. However, before this Court there are only two
petitioners, the 1st and the 2nd in the writ petition.
275
3rd and 4th petitioners figure here as respondents 6th and 7th. The 5th
petitioner does not figure in the array of parties.
My
learned brother has considered the facts in detail and the questions of law
relevant for the purpose of this appeal. I fully agree with his conclusions.
This short tail piece is with a purpose. This case goes by the name
"Public Interest Litigation." I wish to delineate the parameters of
public interest litigation concisely, against the background of the facts of
this case, so that this salutory type of litigation does not lose its
credibility. Today public spirited litigants rush to Course to file cases in
profusion under this attractive name. They must inspire confidence in Courts
and among the public. They must be above suspicious.
See
the facts of this case and end result.
The
concern of the appellants has been to preserve the Zoo, to protect and
encourage the migratory birds, to keep their trajectory clear, to preserve
their diurnal feed and nocturnal habitat and to protect the Zoo. To serve this
purpose they want to prevent a-5-Star Hotel coming up in its vicinity in_four
acres land belonging to the Zoo and thus to see that this land is not lost to
the Zoo. The litigation has been pending from 1982 and in the bargin what has
happened is described by the learned Trial Judge as follows, in paragraph 130
of his Judgment:
"130.
Prayer for stay of the operation of this order is rejected. Because of the pendency
of this matter, valuable time has been lost and if further time is lost, the
respondent No. 5 may not have any further interest in the matter. They have suffered
sufficient loss and the Govt. will also suffer loss. The public has also
suffered. Accordingly, I am not inclined to stay this matter any further. I
ought to point out further that as the petitioners obtained the interim order,
obviously they were not interested in an early hearing of this matter and until
a few months back no step was taken to have this matter heard. If a stay is
granted, similar situation will follow." This public interest: litigation
takes its birth, perhaps from the righteous indignation of the petitioners,
against the State Government at their bartering away of four acres of land
belonging to the Zoo to the Taj Group of Hotels. The writ petition is mainly
based on the ground that the decision of the Government is arbitrary. The question
to be answered is whether this accusation can be justified. On a 276 perusal of
the records I find that the State Government had made available to the Court
all the relevant documents so as to satisfy the Court about the propriety of
its action. This is how the trial Judge deals about this aspect of the case:
"4.
Before I deal with the contention of the parties before me I ought to point out
one thing. In this case, ultimately the hearing was not confined only in
respect of the materials specified .in the petition and affidavits or annexure
to the same, but the submissions were based on the further documents and files
produced before me mainly by the State and also some documents by the private
respondent being respondent No. 5.1 ought to point out that this is one of the
exceptional cases where the State has made available to this Court all
documents in connection with the proposal for lending over a piece of the State
Government land to respondent No. 5 to enable them to construct a 5-star hotel
in Calcutta. The State Government has produced before me the original files,
including those containing the notes and Cabinet Memorandum for my inspection,
the facts which I shall set out herein are gathered from these records and
files produced before me, though most of them do not find place in the
affidavits " The two portions of Judgment extracted above show that
things: one, the petitioners did not take any steps to get the matter heard
expeditiously, after they obtained an interim order to get all the work
stopped; two, that the State Government made available to the Court all the
materials to prove that its decision was taken after mature consideration at
all levels.
The
appellants failed before the learned Trial Judge on all the points raised by
them. After an exhaustive discussion of the various aspects of the case, the
learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition. The only ground on which the
appellants succeeded before the Trial Judge was on locus standi. This
preliminary objection of the Hotel Group was rejected.
The
matter was taken in appeal. The Division Bench in an equally reasoned Judgment,
adverting to all the factual aspects of the case, upheld the Judgment of the
learned Trial Judge and dismissed the appeal.
277
One redeeming factor in this case is the total absence of any allegation of malafides
against the Government by the petitioners. This is how the Division Bench deals
with aspect of the case in its Judgment:
"The
appellants before us have impunged the State Government's decision to grant
aforesaid four acres of land out of Begumbari Compound to India Hotel Co. Ltd.,
mainly on the ground that the same was unreasonable and arbitrary.
The
State Government did not apply its mind to relevant facts before disposing of
the said valuable lands in discharge of the public interest. In their writ
petition or in course of their submissions before us the appellants did not try
to make out a case of personal malice against the State Government or its
Ministers and Civil Servants ......... " The Division Bench held that the
decision taken was neither unreasonable nor arbitrary and that taking away of
four acres of land from the Zoo was not detrimental to public interest.
One
would have thought that the concurrent decisions of the learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench, on the facts of the case, would have persuaded the
appellants, to rest content with the litigation by accepting the verdicts so
given. They could have moved the Government or taken other steps to expedite
the starting of an additional Zoo with a larger extent which the Government
promised. But the appellants felt that public interest would be served better
by moving this Court for reconsideration of the factual details. When the
matter came up before this Court, this Court gave priority to this case despite
the huge pendency of cases before it, to see whether public interest was really
in peril or not.
During
the course of the arguments, we soared high along with the migratory birds into
the realms of ecology, environmental protection, public interest, natural
justice, arbitrariness, eminent domain and the like and ultimately, from those
ethereal regions descended on the terraferma faced with the reality that this
case is devoid of any merits and has only to be dismissed. That is why I
prefaced this Judgment with the observation that this was an avoidable
exercise.
The
approach of the Taj Group Hotels in this case has been creditably fair. They
have given all the assurances necessary to preserve the Zoo and its inmates.
They were willing to afford all the 278 requisite safeguards. In the place of a
dilapidated hospital, operation theater and the like, they constructed
buildings anew at a cost of Rs.30 lakhs which amount they were entitled to be
reimbursed under clause 25 of the lease, which they voluntarily gave up. In
addition to this, they surrendered an area of 288 sq. mtrs. from the land
allotted to them to the Zoo. They agreed to build not the usual sky scrapper
hotel, but a garden hotel, the height of which would not go beyond 75 feet,
despite the fact that there existed in the surrounding area buildings which
were very high. This was done to keep free the route of the flight of the
birds. They also agreed to have subdued light in' the hotel, again in the
interest of the birds. They agreed to keep the surroundings of the hotel and
the flora well maintained. We were told that already 30000 plants were getting
ready to adorn the area to be occupied by them.
Regarding
the commercial and financial aspects of the lease also there is nothing
secretive though they came in for sharp criticism at the hands of the
appellants before us. This criticism again, according to me, is unfounded. The
learned counsel for the Taj Group made available to us, the method adopted. The
method adopted is the nett sales method of calculating the compensation paid.
This is a fairly well known method adopted in such situations. This method was
also subject to criticism by the appellants' counsel and he in support of his
submission handed over to us a calculation, which according to me, betrays
unawareness with the method of calculation to be adopted in similar cases. The
calculation given to us so far as its arithmetic is concerned is correct. That
is this. An amount of 4 crores, if deposited in bank, at a particular rate of
compound interest, for 99 years, would swell to an astronomical figure.
This
calculation is relevant only when you think of selling the land and investing
the sale proceeds in a bank. This calculation conveniently forgets that what is
involved here is not the sale of the land but a lease by the Government, as a
policy decision to the hotel group to start a Five Star Hotel, which according
to the Government was a prime need to the city of Calcutta. The calculation handed over has no
bearing to the facts of this case at all.
A deal
like this cannot be concluded by public auction.
Here,
we do not have a case, again, sale of a Government property. Therefore, public
auction has necessarily to be ruled out. Only Taj Group of Hotels came forward
with an offer to start the hotel. The lease was the culmination after a long,
elaborate and open procedure with nothing to hide which therefore cannot
justifiably be subject to adverse criticism.
279 My
purpose in adding these few lines of my own is to highlight the need for
restraint on the part of the public interest litigants when they move Courts.
Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But one is led to think that
it poses a threat to courts and public alike. Such cases are now filed without any
rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to lay down clear guide-lines and
to outline the correct parameters for entertainment of such petitions. If
courts do not restrict the free flow of such cases in the name of Public
Interest Litigations, the traditional litigation will suffer and the courts of
law, instead of dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves
administrative and executive functions.
I
should not be understood to say that traditional litigation should stay put.
They have to be tackled by other effective methods, like. decentralising the
judicial system and entrusting majority of traditional litigation to village
courts and Lok Adalats without the usual populist stance and by a complete
restructuring of the procedural law which is the villain in delaying disposal
of cases.
It is
only when courts are apprised of gross violation of fundamental rights by a
group or a class action or when basic human rights are invaded or when there
are complaints of such acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts,
especially this Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such
petitions and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for
remedying the hardships and miseries of the needy, the under-dog and the neglected.
I will
be second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this does
not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone to walk in. It
is necessary to have some self imposed restrain of public interest litigants.
Ultimately,
by the dismissal of this appeal, the hotel will be completed and will be
commissioned. Six long years have passed by. I do not think that the appellants
have achieved anything. The first appellant who is a trade unionist has not
espoused any grievance of the mazdoors before us. It was faintly suggested by
the Government's counsel that the first petitioner does not represent all the mazdoors.
This was refuted by the appellants. For the purpose of this case, we will
accept the assertion of the first appellant. Still, we did not have before us
any of their grievances ventilated, which, if there were any, we would have
willingly considered.
280 I
conclude this short Judgment, with a lurking doubt in my mind, and with a
question "Is there something more than what meets the eye in this
case?" S.R. Appeal dismissed.
Back