SHIVSAGAR TIWARIversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A                           SHIVSAGAR TIWARI
                                    v.
                         UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                               OCTOBER 11, 1996

B                [KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

         Misuse ofpowe~iniste,.-Allotment of shops-Without fallowing the
  guidelines, allotted to own relatives and friends-Held, allotments are ar-
  bitrary, misuse ofpower-Injury to the high principle ofpublic la»--Actionable
C in tort-No injury to third person-No sequitur insofar as tortious liability
  following misfeasance of public office-Show Cause Notice to the Minister as
  to why exemplary damages should not be awarded against her for her alleged
  misuse of power.

          The present Writ Petition has been filed against the alleged
D motivated and arbitrary allotments of shops/stalls in the year 1994 by the
    then Minister of Urban Development. It was alleged that the Minister had
    allotted some of the shops without following the guidelines of the Policy of
    1994 to own relatives and friends. The Court directed the CBI to inquire
    into the matter and file a report.
E
          According to CBI, the orders of allotments in respect of the
    shops/stalls in question, were passed by the said Minister and all the 6
    shops allotted were allotted to her own relatives/employees/domestic ser·
    vants of her family members and family friends. The Minister had made
    ten different categories of persons as a basis for deciding the allotments,
F   but even this categorization was not adhered to. No reasons, whatsoever,
    were ever assigned to for non-allotment of these shops/stalls to the other
    organizations/persons, who ha:d also applied for the allotment.

          A case under sections 120-B/420/468/471 of IPC and sections 13(2)
G read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered
    against the said Minister, her Addi. Private Secretary and others and a
    Show-Cause was also issued as to why the allotments should not be
    cancelled.

           Director of Estate filed an affidavit before this Court that from
H 1994-onwards 52 shops/stalls had been sanctioned by the Minister, out of
                                        478
                            SHIVSAGAR TIWARI v. U.O.l.                        479.

     which 7 shops were already allotted before the approval of the Policy of A
     1994 and the remaining 45 shops were allotted after the approval of the
     said policy. All the allottees, so allotted, were noticed individually to
     appear and file their representation before this Court.

           According to their representation, they had been given allotments
     either because of their being unemployed youths, freedom-fighters, hand·        B
     icapped, members of Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes, widow or poverty·
     stricken.

           Disposing of the writ, this Court

           HELD: 1. It is clear from the report of the CBI that the allottees had    C
     been selected, not by following the tender system, as required by the policy
     of 1994 but because of some relationship with the Minister. If that be so,
     the allotments were wholly arbitrary and speak of misuse of power. Such
     misfeasance in public office is considered as a species of tortious liability
     by the world jurisprudence and to prevent such misuse provision of award·       D
     ing exemplary damages has been accepted by them. [483-C, 485-C]

           Writ Petition (C) No. 26 of 1995; Common Cause, a Registered Society
     v. Union of India; Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K Gupta, [1994} 1
     SCC 243   =   III (1993) CPJ 7(SC); Ron Carelli v. Duplejis, (1959) 16 DLR
     (2d) 689; Farrington v. Thomson, (1959) VR 280; Henly v. Lyme Corpn., E
     (1858) 5 Bing at 107; Bourgoin SA v. Minister of Agriculture, Fishery and
     Food, (1985) 3 All ER 585; Dunlop v. Woollahar Municipal Council, (1982)
     AC 158; Deshpriya &Anr. v. Municipal Council, Nuwara Eliva & Ors, (1996)
     1 CHRD 115- 117; Tynes v. Barr, (1996) 1 CHRD 117-120 and Samulls v.
     Attorney General, (1996) 1CHRD120-122, relied on.
                                                                                     F
           2. The State Exchequer has already suffered a loss. If a tender had
     been called, higher revenue would have been earned by the State. So the
.-   mere fact that there is no injury to a third person and he has not come
     forward to claim damages, has no sequitur insofar as the tortious liability
     following misfeasance of public office is concerned. [485-F-G]                  G
            3.1. To take care of this illegality, all the allotments in question are
     cancelled and the Government is directed to first consider the policy of
     1994 and its categorization, and make requisite alteration, if needed, to
     make the policy just and fair and then make the allotments, according to
     law. If any of the present allottee would not be so selected, he/she be asked H
    480                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7.S.C.R.
A   to vacate the shop/stall by giving them three months time. [485-H, 486-A]

            3.2. A notice is directed to be issued to the said Minister who was
    prim af acie personally responsible for the illegal allotments, to show cause
    why damages should n.ot be awarded against her for her alleged misuse of
    power. [486-CJ
B
            CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 585 of
    1994.

            Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
c         In-Person for the Petitioner Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. and Ranjit Kumar
    for the Petitioner.

           Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, K.T.S. Tulshi, G. Ramas-
    wamy, Jitendra Sharma, G.L. Sahni, D.P. Gupta, P.K. Goswami, Arun
D   Jaitley, R.K. jain, K. Madhava Reddy, T.C. Sharma, Ms. Sushma Suri, V.K.
    Verma, Sanajy R. Hegde, T. Raja, R. Kumar Gupta, M.P. Sharma, AN.
    Bardiyar, Ms. Meenakshi Vij, Ms. Gunaant Dara, K.S. Bhati, M.K. Singh,
    Ms. Kusum Sharma, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam, Hemant
    Sharma, C.V. Subba Rao, Kailash Vasudev, C.N. Sreekumar, P.H. Parekh,
E   Rakesh K. Khanna, Maninder Singh, P.P. Tripathi, AK. Sanghi, Arun
    Kholsa, Sushi! Kumar Jain, Manoj Goel, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, lrshad
    Ahmed, Prem Malhotra, Y. Aharyu, Rajiv Garg, R.K. Khanna, K. Lahiri,
    (R.N. Keshwani (P.N. Talwar) for R.K. Garg, Anoop Baghai, AK. Sinha,
    Raja Chatterjee, Viplav Sharma and M.     c:Dhingra for the Respondents.

F           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          HANSARIA, J. Edmund Burke stated as early as 1777: "Among a
    people generally corrupt, liberty cannot long exist." In 1778, he observed:
    "An arbitrary system indeed must always be a corrupt one. There never
                                                                                    -.
G   was a man who thought he had no law but own will, who did not soon find
    that he had no end but his own profit."

          2. According to Fancis Beamnount (1584-1616) corruption is a tree,
    whose branches are of an unmeasurable length, they spread everywhere,
    and the dew that drops from thence, hath infected some chairs and stools
H   of authority.
                  SHNSAGAR TIWARI v. U.0.1. [HMISARIA, J.]                  481
          3. In the Encyclopaedia of Democracy by Seymour Martin Lipset, A
    Vol. 1, page 310, in the Chapter "Corruption", it is stated that corruption
    is an abuse of public resources for private gain. It is known that bribes
    open the way for access to the State for those who are willing to pay and
    can afford to pay. The situation leaves non-corrupt citizen with the belief
    that one counts only if one has the right personal contact with those who
                                                                                B
    hold power and also allow persons with money power to get things done
    to their advantage through back door.

            4. In the present case, as we are concerned with alleged motivated,
    arbitrary and high-handed actions of a Minister, it would be worth-while
    to point out what role has been assigned in a parliamentary democracy to C
    a Minister. The head of the State (President or Governor in our country,
    as the case may be,) calls upon the leader of the political party that
    commands majority to form government and appoints him as prime/Chief
    Minister; and on tater's advice appoints other Ministers. Business of the
    government gets allocated and is run as per business rules framed, which D
    in our Constitution has been dealt by Article 1~6(3). The executive power
    of the Government is distributed department wise and one Minister is
    made the head of that department. That Minister becomes responsible for
    the actions, acts and policies of his department. He becomes principally
    accountable and answerable to the people. His powers and duties are
    regulated by the law of the land. The legal and moral responsibility or E
    liability for the acts or omissions rest solely on the Minister.       .

           5. Having noted the philosophy, sociology and etymology of corrup-
    tion, as well as the essence of a parliamentary democracy, let it broadly be
    seen what had happened in the present case. For this purpose it would be       F
    enough to note some of the prima f acie conclusions arrived at by the
    Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) who was required by this Court to
I   inquire into the matter (which has come to be known as Housing Scam)
    by order dated 14.2.1996.

          6. The CBI has since inquired into the matter in some detail and has G
    by now submitted 4 Interim Reports. According to the CBI, orders of
    allotment in respect of the shops/stalls in question were passed by Smt.
    Shiela Kaul, the then Minister of Urban Development, and "all the 6 shops
    have been allotted by her to her own relation/employees/domestic servants
    of her family members and family friends. She has allotted 2 shops to her H
    482                   SUPR~ME COURT REPORTS            [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A 2 grandsons, one shop to the maidservant of her son, Sh. Vikram Kaul who
    is residing in Dubai, one shop to handloorri manager of the firm owned by
    her son-in-law and another shop to a close friend. One shop has been
    allotted to the nephew of the Minister of State, Sh. P.K. Thungon. While
    making allotments in respect of stalls, she has allotted most of stalls to the
B   relations/friends of her personal staff and officials of Dte. of Estates." The
    CBI has also reported that Smt. Shiela Kaul had made ten different
    categories of persons as the basis for deciding allotments, but even ·this
    categorisation was not adhered to while making allotments. The further
    findings are: (1) "Many other organisations/persons who had also applied
    for allotment of shops/stalls from time to time were not considered for
C   allotment and no reasons, whatsoever, were assigned for non-allotment of
    shops/stalls to them"; and (2) - "At the time of discretionary allotments
    made by Smt. Shiela Kaul in 1992 and 1994 persons who were relations of
    her personal staff were considered and allotted shops."

D         7. In the order dated 19.7.1996 this Court noted that a regular cases
    under sections 120/B, 420, 468/471 IPC and section 13(2) read with
    13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been registered
    against Smt. Shiela Kaul and her Addi. Private Secretary Rajan S. Lala and
    others. The order of that date has also noted about various other steps
    taken, which include issuance of show cause why allotment of shops/stalls
E   should not be· cancelled. H was desired that the notices be served within a
    week and the Estate Officer, after considering their replies if any, place a
    report before the Court within four weeks.

          8. Such a report was filed under the affidavit of Shri Harcharan Jeet
F Singh, Director of Estates, which was taken up for consideration on
  6.9.1996. The affidavit of the Director has stated that from 1994 onwards
  52 shops/stalls had been sanctioned by the then Minister of Urban
  Development (Smt. Shiela Kaul) out of which 7 shops were allotted by Smt.
  Kaul before she had approved policy of 1994 and the remaining 45 shops
  were allotted after the poFcy of 1994. In the :affidavit the gist of the
G objections filed by the various allottees was enclosed. This Court thought
  it appropriate to give an opportunity of hearing to all these persons before
  any action was taken. A direction was, therefore, given to the Director to
  issue individual notices to the 52 persons (wrongly mentioned as 42 in the
  order) to be personally present in the Court or be represented through
H their counsel on 27th September. These allottees so appeared either in
               SHNSAGAR TIWARiv. U.01.[HANSARIA,J.]                       483

person or through counsel and they were heard. The sum and substance            A
of the representations of the allottees was that they had been given an
allotment either because of their being unemployed youths, freedom
fighters, handicapped, members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes,
widow or poverty-stricken.

       9. Question is whether they were selected in accordance with law,
                                                                                 B
which aspect has its impotance because apparently a large number of other
persons could as well fall within the categories in question and had applied
also? From the report of the CBI it is clear that the allottees had been
selected, not by following the tender system, as required by the policy of
1994, but because of their relationship with the Minister or her personal        C
staff, or being employee or friends of such persons. If that be so, the
allotments were ..yholly arbitrary and speak of misuse of power. All impor-
tant question is what is required to be done to undo the wrong and how
the wrong doer is to be dealt with within the parameters known to law.

                                                                                D
       10. It would be apposite in this contact to refer to the recent decision .
of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 26 of 1995 (Common Cause, a
Registered Society v. Union of India) rendered on September 25, 1996, in
which one of us (Kuldip Singh, J.) reiterated the need to act fairly and
justly in the matter of grant of largesses, pointing out that any arbitrary
distribution of national wealth would violate the law of the land. Mention E
was made of the Judgment in Lucknow Development Authority v. N.K
Gupta, (1994] 1 SCC 243, stating that the same approved "misfeasance in
public office" as a part of the law of the tort. It was pointed out that public
servants become liable in damages for malicio1ts, deliberate or injurious
wrong-doing.                                                                      F

       11. A reference to Wade's 'Administrative Law' shows that a breach
of statutory duty does give rise in public law to liability, which has come to
be known as "misfeasance in. public office", and which includes malicious
abuse of power. This aspect has been dealt at pages 789 of 7th Edition. It
has been stated that public authorities or officers may be liable in damages G
for malicious, deliberate or injurious wrong-doing. The Supreme Court of
Canada in Ron Carelli v. Duplejis, (1959) 16 DLR (2d) 689 awarded
damage~ against the Prime Minister of Quebec personally for directing the
cancellation of a restaurant - owner's liquor licence. The Supreme Court
of Victoria in Farrington v. Thomson, 1959 VR 280, awarded damages H
    484                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.

A against a licencing inspector and a police officer who had ordered the
    plaintiff to close his hotel and cease supplying liquor, though they knew
    they did not possess such a power. Smith J. referred in that case to the
    statement of Best 0 made in Henly v. Lyme C01pn., (1858) S Bing 91 at
    107 reading as below:

B           "Now I take it to be perfectly clear, that if a public officer abuses
            his office, either by an act of omission or commission, and the
            consequence of that is an injury to an individual, an action may be
            maintained against such public officer. The instance of this are so
            numerous that it would be a waste of time to refer to them."
c         12. The learned author has then opined that the cases establish that
    the tort of misfeasance in public offices goes at least to the length of
                                                               to
    imposing liability on public officer who does an act which his knowledge
    amounts to an abuse of his office.

D         13. We may also note what has been stated in this regard in "Cases
    and Materials on Administrative Law" by SH Bailey and other at pages 826
    et al of 2nd Edition. The authors have noted the decision rendered in
    Bourgoin SA v. Minister of Agriculture, Fishery and Food, (1985-3) All ER
    585, on the subject of misfeasance. In that case damages were claimed
E   against a Minister, which was held permissible. Lord Diplock's observation
    in Dunlop v. Woollahar Municipal Council, (1982) AC 158, that this was
    "well established" position was noted.

         14. From the aforesaid it is clear that the above has been accepted
  as a part of the law of tort practically all over the world. What is more, in
F some countries exemplary damages have been awarded for misuse of public
  power. Reference may be made to Deshpriya and Another v. Municipal
  Council, Nuwara Eliya & Others, which a decision of the Supreme Court of
  Sri Lanka dated 10.3.1995, noted at pages 115 to 117 of 1996(1) Common-
  wealth Human Rights Law Digest (CHRD). Therein, aggravated award
  was ordered where political discrimination was the motive for restricting
G freedom of expression. The Supreme Court of Bahamas in the case of
  Tynes v. Ba", by a decision rendered on 28.3.1994, ordered for exemplary
  damages for arbitrary, oppressive or unconstitutional action by State Offi-
  cials. A summary of this decision is reported at pages 117 to 120 'of the
  aforesaid Law Digest. The need for awarding exemplary damages was felt
H by Sauyer, J. because of the arrogant, abusive and outrageous disregard
               SHNSAGAR TIWARlv. U.O.I.(HANSARIA,J.)                    485

shown by the police for the law. The learned Judge awarded $40,505 as A
special damages; $75,000 for assault, battery and false imprisonment; $
1,00,000 for malicious prosecution and $40,000 for breach of the plaintiffs
constitutional rights. Reference may also be made to the decision of
Supreme Court of jamaica in Samu/ls v. Attorney General, (noted at pages
120 to 122 of the aforesaid Digest) in which Reckford, J. by his decision
                                                                            B
dated 11.11.1994, awarded exemplary damages for assault battery and
malicious prosecution. The award was quantified at $1,00,000.

      15. The world jurisprudence has thus accepted misfeasance in public
office as a species of tortious liability and, to prevent misuse, different
courts across the sea have been awarding exemplary damages.                   C

       16. We are conscious that the aforesaid cases dealt with injury to a
third party (following misuse of power) who had sought damages for the
loss caused, whereas in the present case there is no injury as such to any
third person. Even so, the aforesaid cases have been referred for two D
purposes. Firstly and primarily to bring home the position in law that
misuse of power by a public official is actionable in tort, Secondly, to state
that in such cases damages awarded are exemplary. The fact that there is
 no injury to a third person in the present case is not enough to make the
aforesaid principles non-applicable inasmuch as there was injury to the
high principle in public law that a public functionary has to use its power E
for bonafide purpose only and in a transparent manner. Insofar as the
aspect of loss is concerned, it deserves to be pointed out that there was
loss in present case also; and this was to the State Exchequer resultant
upon giving of allotments without calling tender as required by the policy.
Needless to say that if tender would have been called, higher revenue F
would have been earned by the State on giving the allotments. For these
reasons, we are of the view that the mere fact that in the present case there
is no injury to a third person and he has not come forward to claim
damages, has no sequitur insofar as the tortious liability following mis-
feasance of public office is concerned.
                                                                              G
      17. Now, to take care of the illegality, we have to take two steps. First,
cancel the allotments. To decide as to who should get the shops/stalls, the
Government would first consider whether its policy of 1994 and categorisa-
tion made by it need alteration in any way. While undertaking this work,
the Government would make such provisions in the policy which are just H
    486                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [J 996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A and fair. After the policy has been framed, the shops/stalls would be
    allotted as per the policy and by following a procedure having the sanction
    of law. In case it would be that any of the present allottees would not be
    the person so selected, he/she shall be asked to vacate the shop/stall by
    giving three months time. We would require the Government to formulate
B   the policy within two months and thereafter to complete the exercise of
    allotment within two months. Till then, the present allottees would be
    allowed to continue.

          18. Secondly, Smt. Shiela Kaul, who was prima facie personally
    responsible for the illegal allotments, has to be asked to show cause as to   •
C   why dam'age should not be awarded against her for her alleged misuse of
    power. So, a notice be issued to her to show cause why she should not
    asked to pay such sum as damages, for each of the illegal allotments made
    by her, as this Court would deem just and proper. The cause would be
    shown within three weeks of the receipt of this order.

D         19. The issue relating to the matter of illegal allotments of the
    aforesaid 52 shops/stalls, stands disposed of accordingly. It may be put up
    for further orders on 1st November, 1996.

          20. Let a copy of this order be served on Smt. Shiela Kaul urgently
    to enable her to act as ordered in the judgment. Steps in this regard shall
E   be taken by the Registry within three days.

    B.K.S.                                                Petition disposed of.