LatestLaws.

com

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7319-7320 OF 2019

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 172-173 of 2019)

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NEEMUCH .... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MAHADEO REAL ESTATE AND ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeals challenge the Judgment and Order

passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High

Court, Bench at Indore, dated 31.08.2017 thereby allowing the

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein and the
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2019.09.17
16:58:17 IST
Reason:
subsequent Order dated 05.07.2018 thereby, rejecting the

Review Petition filed by the appellant.

 LatestLaws.com

3. The factual background, in brief, giving rise to the

present appeals is as under.

The appellant, which is a Municipal Council, duly

constituted under the Madhya Pradesh Municipality Act, 1961

(hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) had invited tenders for

allotment of land on lease, for a period of 30 years. The land

was ad-measuring 163176 sq. ft. situated in Scheme No.1A

(Commercial-cum-Residential Use), Neemuch. The Notice

Inviting Tenders (“NIT” for short) was published in the daily

newspapers, viz., Nai Duniya, Dainik Bhaskar, Free Press and

Dashpur Express. Respondent No.1, which is a registered

partnership firm along with other bidders had submitted the

tender thereby giving an offer of Rs.5,81,00,106/-. It had also

deposited the earnest money amounting to Rs. 47,00,000/-. The

bids of the participants were opened in presence of the

representatives of all the bidders. The bid of respondent No. 1

herein was found to be highest.

4. The appellant issued a letter dated 27.09.2008 thereby

informing respondent No. 1 that its bid was accepted.

Respondent No.1 was directed to deposit an amount of

Rs.1,45,25,050/-, i.e., 25% of the bid amount within a period of

 LatestLaws.com

seven days. Respondent no.1 in accordance therewith deposited

the aforesaid amount on 01.10.2008.

5. It appears that an objection was raised by two members

of the Municipal Council under the provisions of Section 323 of

the said Act before the Collector with regard to the said tender

process. It further appears, that the Collector vide Order dated

18.07.2008 had stayed further proceedings of the tender

process. Vide Order dated 23.12.2008, the Collector disposed of

the proceeding observing therein, that the proposal be sent for

approval of the State Government in the Urban Administrative

and Development Department, respondent No. 2 herein, under

the provisions of Section 109 of the said Act.

6. Thereafter, it appears that, there was certain

correspondence between the Urban Administrative and

Development Department, on one hand, and the Divisional

Revenue Commissioner of Ujjain, respondent No.3 herein, on

the other hand. Finally, respondent No.3 passed an order dated

03.07.2010 observing therein that, the tenders invited in

connection with transfer of the said land were not competitive.

He further observed in the said Order, that the NIT was

published only in Indore edition of two Hindi Newspapers at

Indore and as such there was no wide circulation. As such, he

 LatestLaws.com

rejected the proposal of the Municipal Council and returned the

same with the direction to invite the tenders again by publishing

the NIT in at least one National level English newspaper and one

State level reputed Hindi newspaper. Being aggrieved thereby,

respondent No. 1 herein approached the Madhya Pradesh High

Court in Writ Petition No.12204 of 2010. The Division Bench

vide Order dated 31.08.2017 allowed the writ petition thereby

quashing and setting aside the Order dated 03.07.2010 passed

by respondent No.3 and further directing him to grant approval

on behalf of the State Government for allotment of the land on

lease in favour of respondent no.1. The appellant, thereafter,

preferred Review Petition No. 1072 of 2017. The same was

rejected. Hence, the present appeals challenging both the

Orders dated 31.08.2017 and 05.07.2018.

7. We have heard Mr. Harsh Parashar, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Kalyan Banerjee,

learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

8. For appreciating the rival controversy, it will be relevant

to refer to the provisions of Section 109 of the said Act. Section

109 reads as follows.

“109. Provisions governing the disposal of

Municipal property vesting in or under the
management of Council.- No streets, land public
 LatestLaws.com

places, drains or irrigation channels shall be sold,

leased or otherwise alienated, save in accordance
with such rules as may be made in this behalf.-

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1)-

(a) the Chief Municipal Officer may, in his
discretion, grant a lease of any immovable
property belonging to the Council, including
any right of fishing or of gathering and taking
fruits, flowers and then like, of which the
premium or rent, or both, as the case may be,
does not exceed two hundred and fifty rupees
for any period not exceeding twelve months at a
time:
Provided that every such lease granted by the
Chief Municipal Officer, other than the lease of
the class in respect of which the President-in-
Council has by resolution exempted the Chief
Municipal Officer from compliance with the
requirements of this proviso, shall be reported
by him to the President-in-Council within
fifteen days after the same has been granted.
(b) with the sanction of the President-in-Council,
the Chief Municipal Officer may, by sale or
otherwise grant a lease of immovable property
including any such right as aforesaid for any
period not exceeding three years at a time of
which the premium, or rent, or both, as the
case may be, for any one year does not exceed
one thousand five hundred rupees;
(c) with the sanction of the Council, the Chief
Municipal Officer may lease, sell or otherwise
convey any immovable property belonging to
the Council.
(3) The sanction of the President-in-Council or of
the Council under sub-section (2) may be given
either generally for any class of cases or
specially in any particular case:
Provided that-
(i) no property vesting in the Council in trust
shall be leased, sold or otherwise conveyed in a
 LatestLaws.com

manner that is likely to prejudicially effect the

purpose of the trust subject to which such
property is held;
(ii) no land exceeding fifty thousand rupees in
value shall be sold or otherwise conveyed
without the previous sanction of the State
Government and every sale or other conveyance
of property vesting in the Council shall be
deemed to be subject to the conditions and
limitations imposed by this Act or by any other
enactment for the time being in force.”

9. It could thus be seen that, the aforesaid provision

governs the disposal of municipal property vesting in or under

the management of the Municipal Council. Clause (ii) of sub-

section (3) of Section 109 of the said Act would be the most

relevant provision. It provides that, no land exceeding fifty

thousand rupees in value shall be sold or otherwise conveyed

without the previous sanction of the State Government. It

further provides that, every sale or other conveyance of property

vesting in the Council shall be deemed to be subject to the

conditions and limitations imposed by the said Act or by any

other enactment for the time being in force.

10. It will also be relevant to refer to Rule 3 of the Municipal

Corporation (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules, 1994

(hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”), which reads thus:

 LatestLaws.com

“3. No immovable property which yields or is

capable of yielding an income shall be transferred by
sale, or otherwise conveyed except to the highest
bidder at a public auction or by inviting offers in a
sealed cover:
Provided that if the Corporation is of the opinion that
it is not desirable to hold a public auction or to invite
offers in sealed covers the Corporation may, with the
previous sanction of the State Government, effect
such transfer without public auction or inviting
offers in sealed covers:
Provided further that the Corporation may with the
previous sanction of the State Government and for
the reasons to be recorded in writing, transfer any
immovable property to a bidder other than the
highest bidder:
Provided also that for any such transfer by lease a
reasonable premium shall be payable at the time of
granting the lease and annual rent shall also be
payable in addition during the total period of the
lease.”

11. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule 3 of the said Rules would

reveal, that no immovable property which yields or is capable of

yielding an income shall be transferred by sale, or otherwise

conveyed, except to the highest bidder at a public auction or by

inviting offers in a sealed cover. The proviso thereof provides

that if the Corporation is of the opinion that it is not desirable to

hold a public auction or to invite offers in sealed covers, the

Corporation may, with the previous sanction of the State

Government, effect such transfers without public auction or

 LatestLaws.com

inviting offers in sealed covers. The second proviso also provides

that the Corporation may, with the previous sanction of the

State Government and for the reasons to be recorded in writing,

transfer any immovable property to a bidder other than the

highest bidder.

12. It is thus amply clear that, no land, exceeding fifty

thousand rupees in the value shall be sold or otherwise

conveyed without the previous sanction of the State

Government. The perusal of the aforesaid Rule further makes it

clear that the immovable property which yields or is capable of

yielding an income shall not be transferred by sale or otherwise

conveyed, except to the highest bidder at the public auction or

by inviting offers in a sealed cover. No doubt, with the previous

sanction of the State Government such a transfer could be

effected without public auction or inviting offers in a sealed

cover. The second proviso further provides that, the Corporation

may, with the previous sanction of the State Government and

for the reasons to be recorded in writing, transfer any

immovable property to a bidder other than the highest bidder.

13. It is thus amply clear that, whenever any land which is

having a value exceeding fifty thousand rupees is to be sold the

 LatestLaws.com

same cannot be done without the previous sanction of the State

Government.

14. In the present case, the learned Judges of the Division

Bench have arrived at a finding that such a sanction was, in

fact, granted. We will examine the correctness of the said

finding of fact at a subsequent stage. However, before doing

that, we propose to examine the scope of the powers of the High

Court of judicial review of an administrative action. Though,

there are a catena of judgments of this Court on the said issue,

the law laid down by this Court in the case of Tata Cellular Vs.

Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 lays down the basic

principles which still hold the field. Paragraph 77 of the said

judgment reads thus:

“77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to

the question of legality. Its concern should be:
1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its
powers?
2. Committed an error of law,
3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice,
4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal
would have reached or,
5. abused its powers.

Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether

a particular policy or particular decision taken in the
fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned
with the manner in which those decisions have been
taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary
from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon
 LatestLaws.com

10

which an administrative action is subject to control

by judicial review can be classified as under:
(i) Illegality : This means the decision-maker must
understand correctly the law that regulates
his decision-making power and must give
effect to it.
(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury
unreasonableness.
(iii) Procedural impropriety.

The above are only the broad grounds but it does not
rule out addition of further grounds in course of
time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State
for the Home Department, ex Brind, (1991) 1 AC
696, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one
development, namely, the possible recognition of the
principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test
to be adopted is that the court should, ‘consider
whether something has gone wrong of a nature and
degree which requires its intervention’”.

15. It could thus be seen that the scope of judicial review of

an administrative action is very limited. Unless the Court comes

to a conclusion, that the decision maker has not understood the

law correctly that regulates his decision-making power or when

it is found that the decision of the decision maker is vitiated by

irrationality and that too on the principle of “Wednesbury

Unreasonableness” or unless it is found that there has been a

procedural impropriety in the decision-making process, it would

not be permissible for the High Court to interfere in the decision

making process. It is also equally well settled, that it is not

permissible for the Court to examine the validity of the decision

 LatestLaws.com

11

but this Court can examine only the correctness of the decision-

making process.

16. This Court recently in the case of West Bengal Central

School Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim reported in 2019

SCC OnLine SC 902 had again an occasion to consider the

scope of interference under Article 226 in an administrative

action.

“31. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the

Court is to see whether the decision impugned is
vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to
determine whether a decision is vitiated by error
apparent on the face of the record is whether the error
is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the
error requires examination or argument to establish it.
If an error has to be established by a process of
reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be
two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the
face of the record, as held by this Court
in Satyanarayan v. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960
SC 137. If the provision of a statutory rule is
reasonably capable of two or more constructions and
one construction has been adopted, the decision would
not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only
an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory
provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a
decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in
law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by
issuance of writ of Certiorari.
32. The sweep of power under Article 226 may
be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a
decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no
reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the
same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the
decision cannot rationally be supported by the
 LatestLaws.com

12

materials on record, the same may be regarded as

perverse.
33. However, the power of the Court to examine
the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does
not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the
grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits
of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision.
The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or
unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks
that no reasonable person could have taken, which has
led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not
interfere, because a decision is not perfect.

17. It could thus be seen that an interference by the High

Court would be warranted only when the decision impugned is

vitiated by an apparent error of law, i.e., when the error is

apparent on the face of the record and is self evident. The High

Court would be empowered to exercise the powers when it finds

that the decision impugned is so arbitrary and capricious that

no reasonable person would have ever arrived at. It has been

reiterated that the test is not what the court considers

reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the court

thinks that no reasonable person could have taken. Not only

this but such a decision must have led to manifest injustice.

18. In the light of the aforesaid principles, let us examine the

facts of the present case. Undisputedly, in the present case,

before inviting the bids, prior approval of the State Government

 LatestLaws.com

13

as is required under Section 109 of the said Act was not taken.

It appears, that only after the tender process was finalized and

the Municipal Council had taken a decision to accept the bid of

Respondent No.1, two municipal counsellors raised objection

under the provisions of Section 323 of the said Act, before the

Collector, Neemuch. The Collector, Neemuch on 18.07.2008 had

granted stay to the proceedings. Finally, the Collector, vide

Order dated 23.12.2008 held that for granting the said land on

lease for a period of 30 years, the approval of the State

Government is necessary. Pursuant to the said order by the

Collector, the matter was sent to respondent No. 2- State

Government. The Principal Secretary to the Government of

Madhya Pradesh addressed a communication to the

Commissioner, Ujjain Division, Ujjain (hereinafter referred to as

“the Commissioner”) thereby authorising him to transfer the

land in question. While doing so, the State Government also

directed the Commissioner to inspect that the utilisation of the

land was for the purposes as provided under Neemuch

Development Plan 2011.

19. However, the Commissioner addressed a communication

dated 03.03.2010 to the State Government thereby, pointing out

that the rights for transferring the property having a value more
 LatestLaws.com

14

than fifty thousand rupees is with the State Government. He

has, therefore, solicited guidance from the State Government

seeking clear orders in view of the provisions of Section 109 of

the said Act and Rule 7 of the said Rules. He also pointed out to

the State Government that the Municipal Council had published

the NIT only in two daily newspapers of Hindi language and as

such there was no sufficient competition. He also pointed out

that, as such tenders were filled up by only four bidders. He

specifically observed, that after noticing the rates offered, it

appears that there is cartel amongst the tenderers. He further

pointed out that, had the NIT been published in English and

Hindi newspapers at the National and State level, then there

would have been a wider competition and the higher rates could

have been offered. He, therefore, proposed that while rejecting

the proposal as submitted to the Council it will be appropriate

to direct the Municipal Council, Neemuch, to invite the tenders

again.

20. In response to the aforesaid communication dated

03.03.2010, respondent No. 2-State Government addressed

another communication dated 18.05.2010 to the Commissioner.

The said communication states that after re-examination the

State Government has authorised the Commissioner for

 LatestLaws.com

15

transferring the land in question. The said communication

specifically states that if the proposal submitted by the

Municipal Council was not agreeable to the Commissioner then

while invalidating the proposal by the Municipal Council, he

may give order for initiation of proceedings afresh. In pursuance

of the aforesaid communication dated 18.05.2010, the order

impugned herein is passed by the Commissioner dated

03.07.2010.

21. The Commissioner in the Order dated 03.07.2010 has

found that the bids were not found to be competitive. He further

found that the NIT was published only in two Hindi newspapers

and as such there was no sufficient competition. He has,

therefore, rejected the proposal of the Municipal Council and

while doing so, returned back the same with the direction to

invite the tenders again and get the NIT published in at least

one National level English newspaper and one State level Hindi

newspaper.

22. The situation that emerges is thus. Initially the Municipal

Council, Neemuch, invited tenders for allotment of the said

land on lease for 30 years. This was done without taking prior

approval of the State Government as in required under Section

109 of the said Act. Two municipal counsellors raised objections

 LatestLaws.com

16

before the Collector under the provisions of Section 323 of the

said Act. The Collector, who initially granted stay on

18.07.2008, vide order dated 23.12.2008 directed the Municipal

Council to seek approval of the State Government to the said

proposal. Vide communication dated 21.12.2009, the State

Government directed respondent No. 3-Revenue Commissioner

to hand over the possession of the land to respondent No. 1.

While doing so, the State Government directed the

Commissioner to inspect as to whether the land was being put

for use as per the development plan. On receipt of the

communication, the Divisional Commissioner addressed a

communication to the State Government on 03.03.2010

thereby, specifically pointing out that no proper publicity was

given to the NIT and that the rates were not competitive as per

the market value. It was specifically observed that there was a

cartel among the tenderers and, therefore, sought clear orders

of the State Government in view of Section 109 of the said Act.

He also proposed to reject the proposal with further direction to

invite fresh tenders by giving adequate publicity. In response to

the said communication, the State Government re-examined the

issue and by communication dated 18.05.2010 authorised the

Commissioner for transferring the land in question. It is further

 LatestLaws.com

17

clear from the said communication that, the State Government

authorised the Commissioner to take necessary decision with

regard to grant of sanction under the provisions of Section 109

of the said Act and Rule 7 of the said Rules. It specifically

observed that, if the Commissioner does not agree with the

proposal of the Municipal Council he may while invalidating the

proposal of the Municipal Council give orders for initiation of

proceedings afresh. It is in view of this authorisation that the

Divisional Commissioner has passed the orders which were

impugned before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

23. We are at pains to say, that the Division Bench of the

High Court by only referring to the communication dated

21.12.2009 came to the conclusion that the sanction

contemplated under Section 109 of the said Act was granted by

the State Government. However, the Division Bench has totally

ignored the subsequent correspondence between the State

Government and the Commissioner. Perusal of the subsequent

communication reveals that the Commissioner had pointed out

the infirmities in the proposal of the Municipal Council and

advised the State Government to reject the said proposal with a

direction to the Municipal Council to invite fresh tenders. On

the objection of the Commissioner, the State Government re-

 LatestLaws.com

18

examined and reconsidered the issue and authorised the

Commissioner to exercise powers under Section 109 of the said

Act to take appropriate decision, including rejecting the

proposal and directing the process of re-tendering.

24. It could thus be clearly seen that, the Commissioner,

instead of blindly accepting the directions contained in the

communication dated 21.12.2009, has acted in larger public

interest so that the Municipal Council earns a higher revenue.

Not only this, but the State Government, after the

Commissioner pointing out anomalies to its notice, has re-

examined and reconsidered the issue and authorised the

Commissioner to pass appropriate orders including invalidating

the tender process and directing initiation of fresh tender

process. In the background of this factual situation, the finding

of the Division Bench of the High Court that the action of the

Commissioner is arbitrary and illegal, in our view, is neither

legally or factually correct. As discussed hereinabove, the High

Court, while exercising its powers of judicial review of

administrative action, could not have interfered with the

decision unless the decision suffers from the vice of illegality,

irrationality or procedural impropriety.

 LatestLaws.com

19

25. In the present case, we find that the Commissioner had

acted rightly as a custodian of the public property by pointing

out the anomalies in the proposal of the Municipal Council to

the State Government and the State Government has also

responded in the right perspective by authorising the

Commissioner to take an appropriate decision. We are of the

considered view that, both, the Commissioner as well as the

State Government, have acted in the larger public interest. We

are unable to appreciate as to how the High Court, in the

present matter, could have come to a conclusion that it was

empowered to exercise the power of judicial review to prevent

arbitrariness or favouritism on the part of the State authorities,

as has been observed by it in paragraph 13. We are also unable

to appreciate the finding of the High Court in para 17 wherein it

has observed that the impugned decision of the authorities are

found not to be in the public interest. We ask the question to

us, as to whether directing re-tendering by inviting fresh

tenders after giving wide publicity at the National level so as to

obtain the best price for the public property, would be in the

public interest or as to whether awarding contract to a bidder in

the tender process where it is found that there was no adequate

publicity and also a possibility of there being a cartel of bidders,

 LatestLaws.com

20

would be in the public interest. We are of the considered view

that the decision of the Commissioner which is set aside by the

High Court is undoubtedly in larger public interest, which

would ensure that the Municipal Council earns a higher

revenue by enlarging the scope of the competition. By no stretch

of imagination, the decision of the State Government or the

Commissioner could be termed as illegal, improper,

unreasonable or irrational, which parameters only could have

permitted the High Court to interfere. Interference by the High

Court when none of such parameters exist, in our view, was

totally improper. On the contrary, we find that it is the High

Court, which has failed to take into consideration relevant

material.

26. In the result, the impugned Orders are not sustainable in

law. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed and the impugned

orders dated 31.08.2017 and 05.07.2018 are quashed and set

aside. The petition of respondent No. 1 stands dismissed.

27. However, the Municipal Council is directed to refund the

amount deposited by respondent No. 1 herein along with

interest at the rate of 6% per annum forthwith.

 LatestLaws.com

21

28. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be

no order as to costs.

.....................J.
[ARUN MISHRA]

.....................J.
[M. R. SHAH]

.....................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 17, 2019.