Supreme Court today in Municipal Council Neemuch v Mahadeo Real Estate quashed the High Court’s orders as being unsustainable in law, given that a decision of the Commissioner ensuring higher revenue for the Municipal Council was found to be in larger public interest.
A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah and B.R. Gavai observed that interference by High Court was ‘totally improper’, given that the State Government’s action was not illegal, improper, unreasonable or irrational.
Municipal Corporation (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules 1994 proscribed 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 Commissioner decided to take State Government’s approval in matter of re-tendering, including rejection of present tenders for lease of land for 30 years. Further, he 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. As such, only four bidders had filled tender. His decision was challenged in Madhya Pradesh High Court. The HC set aside his order and directed him “to grant approval on behalf of the State Government for allotment of the land on lease in favour of respondent no.1”
Supreme Court has listed the basic principles governing the limited power of judicial review by a court of any administrative action by an authority. Whether a decision-making authority:
- exceeded its powers,
- Committed an error of law,
- committed a breach of the rules of natural justice,
- reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or,
- abused its powers?
The bench relied on a recent judgment West Bengal Central School Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim (2019) to ask itself, “whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law.”
Court pointed out, “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.”
–India Legal Bureau