http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  14 of 2007

PETITIONER: State of Maharashtra

RESPONDENT: Public Concern for Governance Trust & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/01/2007

BENCH: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Altamas Kabir

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 18965 of 2006) WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 2707 of 2006)

Vinay Mohan Lal                                              .... Appellant (s)

                               Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors.                        .... Respondent(s)

Dr. AR.Lakshmanan, J. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 18965 of 2006)

Leave granted.        The appellant \026 State of Maharashtra has filed the above  appeal from the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court  dated 23.05.2005 only for the purpose of expunging certain  remarks made by the High Court, inasmuch as the same may  affect the working and functioning of the office of the Chief  Minister of the State of Maharashtra.   BACKGROUND FACTS: The City and Industrial Development Corporation  (CIDCO) is an authority constituted under the Maharashtra  Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) for  development of Navi Mumbai as a township.  CIDCO grants plots in Navi Mumbai for construction and  development under the MRTP Act read with prevalent  development control regulations for Navi Mumbai.  There are  detailed regulations and procedures for allotment of land by  CIDCO to various entities.         Five different applications were made by respondent Nos.  5 to 10 to the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra who was  also the Minister for Urban Development.  All business of  Urban Development Department was under the control of the  Minister for urban development.   The then Chief Minister in turn noted on five of the said  applications the words "please put up".  Since the authority  concerned i.e. CIDCO was required to process the same, the  said applications were forwarded to the new town development  authority i.e. CIDCO for further processing.  No other or  further endorsement of any nature whatsoever was made on  any of the said files in relation to the said applications by the  Chief Minister.  Thus, except for the original noting "please put  up", no other noting, direction or order had been made or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

passed on any of the said files by the Chief Minister.  A 6th  application though addressed to the Chief Minister, no  endorsement whatsoever was made by the Chief Minister of  Maharashtra on the said file.  The said file at no stage reached  the office of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra.  The role of the  Chief Minister ended on his endorsing five out of six files with  the noting "please put up". The said six applications were processed by CIDCO and  CIDCO made allotments of land to the six cooperative housing  societies. Public Interest Litigation No. 43 of 2005 was filed in the  Bombay High Court challenging the allotments to the six  Cooperative Housing Societies. The Bombay High Court, after calling the files of CIDCO  relating to the allotment, by its judgment dated 23.11.2005 set  aside the allotments.  In the judgment dated 23.11.2005, the  Bombay High Court on its own conclusions and  interpretations of the file notations without calling for any  explanation, made certain unwarranted observations as  regards the making of the application to the then Chief  Minister as also the notation  "please put up" made by the  then Chief Minister in the five applications.  The High Court in  fact made a complete factual error in observing that a notation  on the application of respondent No. 10 "please process and  pass by 12th April, 2004" was made by the then Chief Minister  when in fact, no such endorsement was made by the then  Chief Minister. In the impugned order dated 23.11.2005, the Bombay High  Court made the following observations against the then Chief  Minister which, according to the appellant \026 State of  Maharashtra, are unwarranted:- "i)     "When we look into these documents, what we find is  that the letters of application titled "Request for  allotment" by respondent Nos. 5 to 9 societies are  computer print-outs.  All the letters are undated.  All  of them are addressed to the then Chief Minister of  Maharashtra Shri Sushilkumar Shinde and not to  CIDCO which as a statutory Corporation, is a separate  competent legal entity.  Each of them bears the  endorsement of the Chief Minister "please put up"  dated 21st February 2004" (para 23)

ii)     "It is seen that Co-operative Housing Societies stated  to be having different names and different addresses in  far off areas have all sought to apply for allotment by  writing identical letters on the same day, not to CIDCO  but to the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra" (para  25)

iii)    The application of respondent No. 10 has been made  separately.  It is also undated.  It is received initially  on 5th April 2004 and bears endorsement of the Chief  Minister dated 5th April, 2004 "Please process and  pass by 12th April, 2004" (para 27)

iv)     "Neither the then Chief Minister nor the Marketing  Manager nor the Managing Director of CIDCO are seen  to have made any query in spite of this astonishing  similarity of approach of these six societies coming  from different parts of the city.  Strangely enough,  their response to these identical applications is also  astonishingly identical" (para 28)

v)      It is esoteric how promoters of societies of such  members initially applied not to CIDCO but to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

Chief Minister whose office finds no place in the MRTP  Act or the aforesaid Rules filed for grant of any plot of  CIDCO". (para 38)

vi)     "It is not known how he became the Chief Promoter of  the said Society which applied later than the other  societies and whose application was not only directed  to be put up by the then Chief Minister but to be put  up by a specific date within a week of the application  having been made and even before its copy was  received by the Managing Director of CIDCO" (para 79)

vii)    The Chief Minister endorsed on five of them to the  Managing Director to "please put up" and on the sixth  to process and pass by the specified date" (para 134) viii)   "Would the Managing Directors and the officers of  CIDCO have entertained these applicants who are  principally slum dwellers for the prime plot known as  "Marine Drive of Navi Mumbai".  If they were to  approach them without being led by these traders and  supported by a builder and without the blessing of the  Chief Minister? (para 139)"

       Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General of India  and Mr. Ravi Kadam, learned Advocate General for the State of  Maharashta have appeared and argued the matter on behalf of  the appellant.  Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned senior  counsel appeared and countered the argument of the  appellant on behalf of the contesting Ist respondent.  Mr. Altaf  Ahmed, learned senior counsel appeared for the CIDCO.         The learned Solicitor General argued the matter at length  and invited our attention to the strictures and remarks made  by the High Court against the then Chief Minister of  Maharashtra Mr. Sushil Kumar Shinde and the documents at  page Nos. 139, 141, 145, 147 and 149 and also the pleadings  and other annexures.         Learned Solicitor General submitted that the present  appeal was filed only for the limited purpose of expunging  certain remarks made by the High Court against the then  Chief Minister who was not even a party to the case and  without calling for an explanation.  He also submitted that it is  not correct on the part of the Court to call for the files, pursue  the same and make observations on its own understanding  and interpretation of the notings in the file without calling for  any explanation from the person making the noting or the  concerned department.  He would further submit that it was  not proper and correct on the part of the High Court to draw  adverse inference on certain endorsement made by the then  Chief Minister without any reference to the State or the then  Chief Minister who was not even a party to the case and  without calling for an explanation.  According to the learned  Solicitor General, the file notings such as please put up are  made in the usual day to day functioning of the office of the  Chief Minister and various other offices and, therefore, the  observation of the High Court against the then Chief Minister  will affect the functioning of the Chief Minister and, therefore,  it is not fair and justified.         Learned Solicitor General also cited the following rulings  of this Court in support of his contention.  They are :-     1.    Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka & Anr.   vs.  State of Assam &            Anr., (1996) 6 SCC 234 (paras 6, 7 & 8). 2.      Rajiv Ranjan Singh ’Lalan’ (VIII) & Anr.  vs.  Union  of India & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 613 at 645 (para 57) 3.      Dr. J.N. Banavalikar vs. Municipal Corporation of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

Delhi & Anr., 1995 Suppl.(4) SCC 89 (para 21). 4.      S. Pratap Singh vs. The State of Punjab, (1964) 4  SCR 733 at 747 (para 2). 5.      A.K.K. Nambiar vs. Union of  India & Anr. 1969 (3)  SCC 864 at 867 (para 8 & 9). Mr. Chander Uday Singh, learned senior counsel for the  first respondent (writ petitioner) submitted that the first  respondent filed the writ petition by way of PIL in order to  expose a massive and orchestrated scam by which CIDCO a  special planning authority constituted under the Maharashtra  Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 has diverted public lands  intended for genuine cooperative housing societies to a small  coterie of commercial builders/developers and thereby  conferred massive commercial largesse upon such  builders/developers while simultaneously causing losses to  CIDCO  and the members of the general public.  According to  him, small coteries of builders/developers approached the  then Chief Minister of Maharashtra and by addressing  applications directly to him in the name of societies on  identical or suspiciously similar computer generated  stationery/letter heads made specific requests for allotment of  prime plots of land by expressly mentioning the plot or plots  desired by them and that the Chief Minister endorsed each  such application with the words "please put up" and  thereupon these applications were hand delivered to CIDCO’s  Head Office at Nariman Point, Mumbai and that these  applications were assigned inward numbers thereby signifying  that they are recommended by the Chief Minister and on the  very same date, when they were received by CIDCO at Nirmal,  the Vice Chairman and M.D. added their endorsements  reading please process early  or words to that effect.  He would  further submit that the Chief Minister’s recommendation  proved so compelling that CIDCO instantly allotted the chosen  plots for residential user even though the classification and  earmarking of these plots was commercial plus residential on  the development plan of CIDCO thereby causing loss to CIDCO  of the much higher premium available on C+R lands.  It was  submitted by learned senior counsel for the respondent that  the High Court pronounced a detailed and well-reasoned  judgment which dealt with the entire subterfuge resorted to in  order to make such dummy allotments at the behest of the  former Chief Minister of Maharashtra and have been dealt  with in great detail by the Division Bench.  He further  submitted that the first respondent filed the writ petition in  the High Court since there had been violations of law as well  as of CIDCO’s land allotment policy, inter alia, in making  allotments to cooperative societies and that the first  respondent had learnt that these allotments had been made  on the basis of the recommendations by the then Chief  Minister or other High functionaries acting at his behest and  that all rules and norms had been disregarded by CIDCO as a  consequence of such recommendations.  Respondent No. 1  accordingly pleaded in para 4 and 14 of the writ petition that it  appeared that these illegal allotments had been made at the  behest of the Chief Minister or other Ministers of the  Government of Maharashtra and in para 14 have specifically  called upon CIDCO to confirm or deny this fact.         According to the first respondent, it is apparent from the  documents produced before the High Court   and the manner  in which allotments were made by CIDCO that this was done  only on the behest of the then Chief Minister.  Learned senior  counsel for the first respondent further submitted that the  special leave petition was filed to seek expunction of certain  adverse comments made against the former Chief Minister of  Maharashtra was filed by the State of Maharashtra and not by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

Shri Sushil Kumar Shinde.  According to the learned counsel,  it is not open to the State of Maharashtra to now file a special  leave petition to challenge the said findings or remarks and  that if at all anybody is aggrieved by the said finding or  remarks, it would be the former Chief Minister and he had  chosen not to file any special leave petition nor to question the  same.  Hence, the present special leave petition is not  maintainable.  While winding up his argument, learned senior  counsel for the first respondent made a prayer that he would  now implead the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra - Shri  Sushil Kumar Shinde as a party respondent and that  permission in that regard may be granted to him in view of the  importance  of the public interest litigation.         We have given our anxious and careful consideration to  the submissions made by both the learned senior counsel.  We  have also carefully perused the pleadings, documents,  annexures and the rulings cited at the time of hearing. Various applications and representations on diverse  subjects are received by the Chief Ministers of the States as  the Head of the State and in respect of the Ministries under  their control.  Often such applications are directly addressed  by members of the public to the Chief Minister.  The Chief  Minister then endorses the same to the concerned department  so that the same my subsequently be followed up by the  concerned department.  When the Chief Minister is on tour in  various parts of the State, representations and applications  are given to him by various people who meet him.  In the  routine course, the Chief Minister endorses the same with a  noting "please put up" and forward the same to the concerned  department.  Such notation merely means that the concerned  department should process the applications and  representations lawfully and in accordance with certain  prescribed procedure.  While making such notations on the  representations/applications so received, the Chief Minister  does not analyse each and every case since this is to be done  at the level of the concerned department which then  scrutinizes the same in accordance with law.  In our view, the  notation is not even treated as a determination of eligibility or  the merit of the concerned application.  It is a routine notation  made in the normal course and is really an action of  forwarding to the concerned department the  representations/applications received by the Chief Minister.   The concerned department is then expected to examine the  said representations/applications and decide the same on its  own merits and in accordance with law.  As rightly pointed out  by learned Solicitor General as to how he treats the file the  nomenclature given to such matters are of matters of internal  administration of the concerned department/corporation.   It is pointed out to us that in the present case, the Chief  Minister was heading the Urban Development Department.   CIDCO comes under the administrative control of the said  department.  Since applications for allotment of land were  received by the Chief Minister, he merely made a notation that  the applications be put up before the concerned authority.  No  notation whatsoever was made that the applications be  processed by any particular date.  The words please put up, in  our opinion, only meant that the applications should be  processed and decided in accordance with law and on its own  merits.  CIDCO which is a Corporation had detailed rules  which govern the allotment of land and are to be complied  with by CIDCO before any allotment of land is made.  The   records placed before us indicates that the applications put up  to CIDCO were  processed at various levels including the  marketing manager, assistant marketing officer, managing  director and upto the stage of board of directors.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

       In our view, the observations and strictures made by the  High Court and are extracted in paragraphs supra certainly  reflects on the functioning of the office of the Chief Minister  and day-today discharge of the duties of the Chief Minister.   As rightly pointed out by learned Solicitor General, after the  endorsement ’please put up’, is made the file may or may not  be approved by the concerned department and it is clear that  the said notations are not approval of the contents of the  representation and in our view, no other meaning could be  taken.  The observations/strictures made and the inference  drawn by the High Court from the notation please put up  made by the Chief Minister are not warranted and are required  to be expunged as rightly contended by learned senior counsel  for the State of Maharashtra.  The High Court has, in our view,  erred in holding that by making a notation please put up the  applicants had blessings of the then Chief Minister.  In our  opinion, the civil appeal at the instance of the State of  Maharashtra is maintainable inasmuch as the observations  and strictures made by the High Court shall affect the working  and functioning of the office of the Chief Minister of the State  of Maharashtra.  The submission of learned senior counsel for  the first respondent that the first respondent had learnt that  these averments had been made on the basis of the  recommendations by the Chief Minister or other high  functionaries acting at his behest and that all the rules and  norms had been disregarded by CIDCO as a consequence of  such recommendations as absolutely no basis whatsoever. The  grievances expressed against the then Chief Minister is  nothing but imaginary. Except making the endorsement  ’please put up’ the Chief Minister has not played any other  role. The observations and strictures passed by the High Court  against the then Chief Minister behind his back and without  calling for an explanation from him is wholly illegal, incorrect  and unwarranted and that the remarks made by the High  Court against the then Chief Minister was most uncharitable  and not called for.         We have perused the documents at page Nos. 139, 141,  143, 145, 147 and 149. At page 139, an application was made  on behalf of Seaquan Cooperative Housing Society, Bombay  requesting for allotment of residential plot for housing society  at Sector-4, Plot No.24-B, Nerul. The said application was  addressed to Shri Sushil Kumar Shinde, the then Chief  Minister of the Maharashtra State. It was stated in the said  application that CIDCO may allot the plot for residential  purposes as per prevailing rules and that the applicants are  ready to pay the necessary lease premium as per the rules and  regulations. Since the application was made directly to the  Chief Minister, he made an endorsement please put up on the  same. At page 141, another application was made by Amey  Cooperative Housing Society, Bombay requesting for allotment  of residential plot at Sector-4, Plot No. 24-A, Nerul addressed  to the then Chief Minister. Similar endorsement ’please put up’  was made by the Chief Minister on this application. At page  143, a similar application was made by Sagarika Cooperative  Housing Society requesting for allotment of residential plot  addressed to the Chief Minister who made an endorsement  saying ’please put up’. At page 145, Sealink Cooperative  Housing Society made an application requesting for allotment  of residential plot addressed to the Chief Minister who made  an endorsement ’please put up’. An application was made at  page 147 by Sea-view Cooperative Housing Society addressed  to the then Chief Minister who also made an endorsement  saying ’please put up’. At page 149, an application made for  allotment of developed land for residential purpose was made  by Vinayak Cooperative Housing Society addressed to the then

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

Chief Minister. The said application, though addressed to the  Chief Minister, no endorsement whatsoever was made by the  Chief Minister of Maharashtra on the said file. The said file at  no stage reached the office of the Chief Minister of  Maharashtra. The role of the Chief Minister ended on his  endorsing 5 out of 6 files with the noting ’please put up’.  Thereafter, the said 6 applications as per the records made  available at the time of hearing were processed by CIDCO and  CIDCO made allotment of lands to the said 6 Cooperative  Housing Societies. These allotments were challenged in PIL  No.43 of 2005 on various grounds. The High Court, after  calling for the file of CIDCO relating to the said 6 allotments  and perusing the same, by its judgments and order dated  23.11.2005 set aside the same. Challenging the said judgment  Amey Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. filed special leave  petition No.336 of 2006 questioning the correctness of the said  judgment and the allotments made by CIDCO with which we  are not concerned in this Civil Appeal. Elaborate and lengthy  submissions were made in that case by the Senior Counsel  appearing for the respective parties. The said special leave  petition No. 336 of 2006 will separately be dealt with on merits  by a separate judgment. We are of the opinion that the  strictures/observations/remarks made by the High Court  against the then Chief Minister Shri Sushil Kumar Shinde is  not warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case as  according to us the High Court has erred in making  observations as regards notations made in files which  observations are made on their own reading and interpretation  of the files without any further reference to the petitions or the  then Chief Minister who was not even a party to the case and  without even calling for an explanation in that regard.  The  High Court has failed to notice that the Chief   Minister was  heading the Urban Development Department and CIDCO  comes under the administrative control of the urban  development and since the applications for allotment of land  were received by the Chief Minister, who merely made a  notation that the application be put up before the concerned  authority.  The High Court also erred in observing that the  application made by respondent No. 10 had been received by  the Chief Minister and bore his endorsement on 05.04.2005 to  the effect please process and pass by 12.04.2004.  We have  perused the said document.  The above endorsement is not  written by the Chief Minister and in fact the said application  did not even reach the office of the Chief Minister at any point  of time. LAW ON THE SUBJECT:         We shall now analyze and consider the rulings of this  Court cited by learned Solicitor General. 1.      Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka & Anr. vs. State of Assam &  Anr., (1996) 6 SCC 234 (paras 6,7 & 8)         The above judgment relates to expunging adverse  remarks.  The above was a case of adverse remarks recorded  by the High Court against the members of hospital allegedly  for misleading the court and stalling process of the court by  submitting manipulated report regarding condition of a person  to justify his shifting from police remand to the hospital.  The  High Court made adverse remarks without giving any  opportunity to the members of extending or defending  themselves, without any evidence showing that their conduct  justified such remarks and without any necessity of such  remarks for the purpose of deciding the matter.  This Court  held on facts that adverse remarks were unwarranted and  hence expunged.  This Court also cautioned superior courts to  use temporate and moderate language and also held that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

opportunity to be given to the affected party before recording  of adverse remarks by the Court.  This Court also held thus:  "6. The tests to be applied while dealing with the question of  expunction of disparaging remarks against a person or  authorities whose conduct comes in for consideration before  a Court of law in cases to be decided by it were succinctly  laid down by this Court in State of U.P. v. Mohd. Naim, AIR  1964 SC 703. Those tests are: (a) Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before  the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending  himself; (b) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that  conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an  integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. The above tests have been quoted with approval and applied  by this Court in its subsequent judgments in Jage Ram v.  Hans Raj Midha, (1972) 1 SCC 181, R.K. Lakshmanan v.  A.K. Srinivasan, (1975) 2 SCC 466 and Niranjan Patnaik v.  Sashibhusan Kar, (1986) 2 SCC 569. 7. We are surprised to find that in spite of the above catena  of decisions of this Court, the learned Judge did not, before  making the remarks, give any opportunity to the appellants,  who were admittedly not parties to the revision petition, to  defend themselves. It cannot be gainsaid that the nature of  remarks the learned Judge has made, has cast a serious  aspersion on the appellants affecting their character and  reputation and may, ultimately affect their career also.  Condemnation of the appellants without giving them an  opportunity of being heard was a complete negation of the  fundamental principle of natural justice. 8. Judged in the context of the first test laid down in Mohd.  Naim’s case (supra) the above discussion of ours is sufficient  to quash the impugned remarks, but we find that the  remarks are vulnerable also to the second test laid down  therein. On perusal of the order dismissing the revision  petition we find that the remarks of the learned Judge are  based solely upon the fact that the report of the medical  Board consisting of four medical experts belied their report.  Indeed, except the report of the Board we have also not  found any other material on record from which the learned  Judge could have legitimately and justifiably obtained  satisfaction to pass the above remarks against the two  appellants before us. We hasten to add that in making the  above observation we have left out of our consideration the  materials which prompted the learned Judge to make  adverse comments against the IO." 2.      Rajiv Ranjan Singh ’Lalan’ (VIII) & Anr. Vs. Union of  India & Ors., (2006) 6 SCC 613 at 645 (para 57)         In the above case, Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J. concurring  with the opinion expressed by Hon. K.G.Balakrishnan, J. has  observed that public interest litigation is meant for the benefit  of the lost and the lonely and it is meant for the benefit of  those whose social backwardness is the reason for no access  to the Court and that PILs are not meant to advance the  political gain and also to settle personal scores under the guise  of PIL and to fight a legal battle.  In para 57, it has been  observed as follows:- "57. Certain allegations have been made against CBDT and  the Public Prosecutors, Members of the Income-tax Tribunal,  etc. None of them were made parties before us. Therefore,  the allegations made against them are one-sided and cannot  be looked into at all. We cannot also say that all these  authorities have acted in a mala fide manner." 3.      Dr. J.N. Banavalikar vs. Municipal Corporation of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

Delhi & Anr., 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 89         This Court, in the above case, in para 21, observed thus: "In the facts and circumstances of this appeal, it is not  possible to hold that the impugned action in removing the  appellant and appointing Dr. Patnaik is unfair or unjust or  irrational or arbitrary or tainted with any mala fide intention.  The contention of the appellant that in order to  accommodate a junior doctor as Medical Superintendent in  I.D. Hospital, Dr. Patnaik had been moved out from the said  hospital to replace the appellant as Medical Superintendent  of RBTB Hospital, is not only vague but lacks in particulars  forming the foundation of such contention. Further, in the  absence of impleadment of the junior doctor who is alleged to  have been favoured by the course of action leading to  removal of the appellant and the person who had allegedly  passed mala fide order in order to favour such junior doctor,  any contention of mala fide action in fact i.e. ’malice in fact’  should not be countenanced by the court. This appeal  therefore, fails and is dismissed without any order as to  costs." 4.      S. Pratap Singh vs. The State of Punjab, (1964) 4 SCR  733 at 747, 748 & 749.         This Court in para 2 held thus:    "We shall first take up for consideration the several  allegations that have been made and see whether they had  been satisfactorily made out. Before proceeding further it is  necessary to state that allegations of a personal character  having been made against the Chief Minister, there could  only be two ways in which they could be repelled. First, if the  allegations were wholly irrelevant, and even if true, would  not afford a basis upon which the appellant would be  entitled to any relief, they need not have been answered and  the appellant could derive no benefit from the respondents  not answering them. We have already dealt with this matter  and have made it clear that if they were true and made out  by acceptable evidence, they could not be ignored as  irrelevant; (2) If they were relevant, in the absence of their  intrinsic improbability the allegations could be countered by  documentary or affidavit evidence which would show their  falsity. In the absence of such evidence they could be  disproved only by the party against whom the allegations  were made denying the same on oath. In the present case  there were serious allegations made against the Chief  Minister and there were several matters of which he alone  could have personal knowledge therefore which he could  deny, but what was, however, placed before the Court in  answer to the charges made against the Chief Minister was  an affidavit by the Secretary to Government in the Medical  Department who could only speak from official records and  obviously not from personal knowledge about the several  matters which were alleged against the Chief Minister. In  these circumstances we do not think it would be proper to  brush aside the allegations made by the appellant,  particularly in respect of those matters where they are  supported by some evidence of a documentary nature seeing  that there is no contradiction by those persons who alone  could have contradicted them. In making this observation we  have in mind the Chief Minister as well as Mrs. Kairon  against whom allegations have been made but who have not  chosen to state on oath the true facts according to them.  Before passing on to a consideration of the details of the  several allegations there is one matter to which we ought to  make reference at this stage and that is the admissibility and  evidentiary value of the tape-recorded talks which have been  produced as part of his supporting evidence by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

appellant. The learned Judges of the High Court without  saying in so many terms that these were inadmissible in  evidence, this being the contention raised by the respondent- state, have practically put them out of consideration for the  reason that tape-recordings were capable of being tampered  with. With respect we cannot agree. There are few  documents and possibly no piece of evidence which could  not be tampered with, but that would certainly not be a  ground on which Courts could reject evidence as  inadmissible or refuse to consider it. It was not contended  before us the tape-recordings were inadmissible. In the  ultimate analysis the factor mentioned would have a bearing  only on the weight to be attached to the evidence and not on  its admissibility. Doubtless, if in any particular case there is  a well-grounded suspicion, not even say proof, that a tape- recording has been tampered with, that would be a good  ground for the court to discount wholly its evidentiary value.  But in the present case we do not see any basis for any such  suggestion. The tape-recordings were referred to by the  appellant in his writ petition as part of the evidence on  which he proposed to rely in support of his assertions as  regards the substance of what passed between him and the  Chief Minister and the members of the latter’s family on the  several matters which were the subject of allegations in the  petition."  5.      A.K.K.Nambiar vs. Union of India & Ors., (1969( 3  SCC 864 at 867.  This Court in paras 8 & 9 held thus: "The appellant made allegations against the Chief Minister of  Andhra Pradesh and other persons some of whose names  were disclosed and some of whose names were not disclosed.  Neither the Chief Minister nor any other person was made a  party. The appellant filed an affidavit in support of the  petition. Neither the petition nor the affidavit was verified.  The affidavits which were filed in answer to the appellant’s  petition were also not verified. The reason for verification of  affidavits are to enable the Court to find out which facts can  be said to be proved on the affidavit evidence of rival parties.  Allegations may be true to knowledge or allegations may be  true to information received from persons or allegations may  be based on records. The importance of verification is to test  the genuineness and authenticity of allegations and also to  make the deponent responsible for allegations. In essence  verification is required to enable the Court to find out as to  whether it will be safe to act on such affidavit evidence. In  the present case, the affidavits of all the parties suffer from  the mischief of lack of proper verification with the result that  the affidavits should not be admissible in evidence. The affidavit evidence assumes importance in the present  case because of allegations of mala fide acts on the part of  the respondents. The appellant alleged that the Union of  India made the order of suspension because of the pressure  of the Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The  appellant, however, did not name any person of the Union of  India who acted in that manner and did not implead the  Chief Minister as a party. In order to succeed on the proof of  mala fides in relation to the order of suspension, the  appellant has to prove either that the order of suspension  was made mala fide or that the order was made for collateral  purposes. In the present case, the appellant neither alleged  nor established either of these features."         In the instant case, allegations have been made against  the then Chief Minister, however, he was not made party  before the Court.  Therefore, the allegations made against him  are one-sided and do not merit any consideration.          We are surprised to find that inspite of catena of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

decisions of this Court, the High Court did not, give an  opportunity to the affected party, the then Chief Minister,  before making remarks.  It cannot be gainsaid that the nature  of remarks made in this judgment will cast a serious aspersion  on the Chief Minister affecting his reputation, career etc.   Condemnation of the then Chief Minister without affording  opportunity of being heard was a complete negation of the  basic principles of natural justice.          For the foregoing reasons, we have no hesitation in  expunging the remarks/observations/strictures made against  the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra - Shri Sushil Kumar  Shinde and allow the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra  who, in our opinion, is competent to maintain this appeal and  order expunction of the remarks and observations/strictures  made against the then Chief Minister.  The appeal stands  allowed only to the above extent.  We make it clear that we are  not expressing any opinion on merits of the rival claims made  in the other special leave petition filed by the cooperative  societies in special leave petition No. 336 of 2006 which will be  dealt with separately.  In the result, the civil appeal arising out of special leave  petition No. 18965 of 2006 stands allowed.  However, there  will be no order as to costs.  

CIVIL APPEAL No. 15 of 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.2707 of 2006)

       The above appeal was filed by Mr. Vinay Mohan Lal who  is a member of the IAS, 1970 batch working in the grade of  Principal Secretary in the Maharashtra Government appointed  as M.D. CIDCO and presently serving as M.D. MAFCO. The  High Court, while disposing off the writ petition filed by way of  PIL, had made certain observations against the appellant. The  appeal was argued by the appellant himself. He submitted that  he was neither a party to the said proceedings nor was  directed to be made a party to the PIL. The observations made  by the High Court against him is quoted herein below for  ready reference: "We are also amazed as to how the then Managing Director,  who is an IAS officer, got persuaded that these are genuine  Housing Societies satisfying all the requirements and  capable of bearing the financial burden. (para 38)

"It was a grand plan to take advantage of their poverty, lack  of understanding and ignorance, and it could not be  executed unless, the original chief promoters, the builders  and the officers of CIDCO at the higher level such as the  Managing Director were party to it.  Would the Managing  Directors and the officers of CIDCO have entertained these  applicants who are principally slum dwellers for this prime  plot known as "Marine Drive of Navi Mumbai", if they were to  approach them without being led by these traders and  supported by a builder and without the blessings of the  Chief Minister?  It is either a case of involvement in the  design or of gross dereliction of duty.  In either case, it is  unjustifiable and highly objectionable and the consequences  must follow (para 139).

"Now suddenly it appears that this device has been invented and  with the participation of the officers of CIDCO right from  the  Managing Director to who so ever are the persons below, all the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

conditions of allotment and scrutiny are given  a go by and a  prime plot sought to be handed over to a builder on a platter \005. A  good scheme has been permitted to be misused with full  connivance of the officers of CIDCO. (para 140)

"What we find is that there is a complete dereliction of  responsibilities on the part of the then Managing Director of  CIDCO and who so ever were incharge of this project.  Merely  because the then CM had asked them to process early, they have  given a complete go-by to scrutiny\005\005 In view of what is stated  above, we expect the authorities of the State Government and  CIDCO to take appropriate actions against the persons concerned  so that this kind of deviation does not take place in future. (para  141)"

The party in person submitted that the said observation  made by the High Court without hearing the appellant has  now mis-interpreted by the government counsel in their  submission before the CAT in O.A. No. 528 of 2005 wherein  the charge sheet issued to the appellant on 11th July has been  challenged due to which the government counsel pointed out  to the tribunal stating that the government was now under  obligation to initiate action against the appellant since the  High Court has so directed. According to Mr. V. Mohan Lal the impugned judgment is  not only erroneous but is also passed on inferences and  surmises which are not sustainable. According to him, the  petitioners before the High Court, present respondent No.11  has mis-interpreted the facts and have misled the High Court  and that events which have happened after due allotment and  which could not have been anticipated at the time of allotment  have been considered to conclude that the allotment itself was  improper. Therefore, the appellant filed the above appeal being  aggrieved by the observations made by the High Court in the  impugned judgment with that limited scope. According to the  appellant, the High Court was not right in passing strictures  against the appellant when the appellant when the appellant  was not a party to the said proceedings. He further submitted  that the High Court was not right to pass adverse comments  against the appellant which are likely to affect the career of the  appellant without giving an opportunity to the appellant of  being heard. He therefore, submitted that the order of the High  Court is in utter violation of principles of natural justice.  According to him, the comments made against the appellant  were uncalled for in the facts and circumstances of the case  and that the said comments which were made without the  appellant being heard could at all have been referred to and  relied on by the High Court in some other proceedings.          We see much force and substance in the contentions put  forward by the party in person. In our opinion, the High Court  was not right in passing comments/observations/strictures  against the appellant when the appellant was not a party to  the said proceedings nor was directed to be made a party. The  High Court was also not right in passing the comments  against the appellant without giving an opportunity to the  appellant of being heard. The act of the High Court, in our  opinion, is in gross violation of the principles of natural  justice.          The party in person cited a ruling of the this court being  State of Bihar vs. Lal Krishna Advani & Others, (2003) 8  SCC 361 at page 367 wherein it was observed that strictures  cannot be passed against an individual without making him a  party and without giving an opportunity to be heard since the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

right to reputation is an individual’s fundamental right. In our  opinion, the observations made by the High Court in paras 38,  139, 140 & 141 of the impugned order are absolutely uncalled  for as the appellant was not a party to the said PIL and they  are also based on complete misunderstanding of the facts. The  observations made by the High Court as rightly pointed out by  the party in person would have wide ramifications and adverse  impact on the career of the appellant.         We have already dealt with the cases and the rulings on  the subject in question in the earlier part of the judgment in  the appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra which, in our  opinion, squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the  case filed by the party in person. We, therefore, expunge the  remarks/observations/strictures made against the appellant  as the same has been made behind his back. We also make it  clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of  the special leave petition No.336 of 2006 filed by Amey  Cooperative Society which will be dealt with absolutely on  merits of the rival claims by a separate judgment.         The party in person has also pointed out certain findings  in the judgment of the High Court. We do not propose to go  into the merits of the other contentions which is the subject- matter of the special leave petition No.336 of 2006. In our  opinion, when an authority takes a decision which may have  civil consequences and affects the rights of a person, the  principles of natural justice would at once come into play.  Reputation of an individual is an important part of ones life. It  is observed in 1955 American LR 171 DF Marion vs. Minnie  Davis and reads as follows:- "The right to enjoyment of a private reputation, unassailed  by malicious slander is of an ancient origin, and is necessary  to human society.  A good reputation is an element of  personal security, and is protected by the Constitution  equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and  property."           This court also in Board of Trustees of the Port of  Bombay vs. Dilip Kumar Raghavendranath Natkarni 1983  (1) SCC 124 has observed that right to reputation is a facet of  right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution.         It is thus amply clear that one is entitled to have and  preserve ones reputation and one also has a right to protect it.  In case any authority in discharge of its duties fastened upon  it under the law, travels into the realm of personal reputation  adversely affecting him, it must provide a chance to him to  have his say in the matter. In such circumstances, right of an  individual to have the safeguard of the principles of natural  justice before being adversely commented upon is statutorily  recognized and violation of the same will have to bear the  scrutiny of judicial review.         For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the  observations/strictures and remarks made by the High Court  against the appellant behind his back is totally uncalled for  and not warranted. We, therefore, have no hesitation to order  expunction of the remarks made in para Nos. 38,139, 140 and  141 of the impugned judgment. The civil appeal is allowed only  to the above extent. We order no costs.