BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MARTYRS MEMORIAL TRUST AND ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

                       [2012] 9 S.C.R. 215


     BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MARTYRS MEMORIAL                             A
               TRUST AND ANOTHER
                                 v.
                UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
                (Civil Appeal No. 4444 of 2010)
                                                                       B
                       OCTOBER 4, 2012

           [R.M. LODHA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

      Constitution of India, 1950:
                                                                       c
        Art. 226 - Writ petition - Disposal of, without adjudication
  on the issues involved - Held: A slipshod consideration or
  cryptic order or decision without due reflection on the issues
  raised in a matter may render such decision unsustainable -
  Each and every matter that comes to court must be examined           0
  with the seriousness it deserves - In the instant case, the writ
  petition was disposed of by High Court without calling for any
  counter-affidavit from respondents - Appellants have raised
  some serious issues concerning the action of the District
  Collector, who wrote the letter in his capacity as Secretary of      E
• the Trust to himself and then passed an order of cancellation
  of allotment of Government accommodation of the Trust in
  his capacity as District Magistrate under pressure of the
  political party then ruling the State - These serious allegations
  did require response from the District Magistrate - Impugned
  order is set aside - Writ petition is restored to the file of High   F
  Court for consideration and disposal afresh - Judgments/
  Orders - Administration of justice.

      Appellant No. 1, a public charitable trust, was created
 with the object to perpetuate the memory of the martyrs               G
 of National Freedom Movement, and on 27.3.2002 was
 allotted Government Accommodation nos. 1 and 2 of
 Revenue Department, Ballia (U.P.). An l.T.Training

                                215                                    H
   216       SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A Institute for the poor and underprivileged students was
  established under aegis of the Trust in the subject
  premises and the building constructed on the adjoining
  land. The Institute was recognized by the Government of
  India under the Employment Generation Training Scheme
B (EGTS). It was the case of the appellcmt-Trust that on
  15.05.2009, the District Collector, who was also the
  Secretary of the Trust, issued an order canceling the
  allotment of the Government Accommodation made in
  favour of the Trust on the ground that a request had been
c received from the Secretary of the Trust by letter dated
  28.02.2009 to cancel the allotment. Subsequently, the
  subject premises were sealed by the official of the State
  Government. In the writ petition filed by the Principal of
  the Institute, the High Court passed an interim order dated
  28.08.2009 directing the authorities to remove the seal,
0
  and permitted examinations to be held. Subsequently, the
  appellant Trust also filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
  49841 of 2009 challenging the order dated 15.05.2009. The
  High Court declined to interfere and disposed of the writ
  petition observing that the writ petitioners had no vested
E right in the subject premises.

         Allowing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1.1 A slipshod consideration or cryptic order
F or decision without due reflection on the issues raised
  in a matter may render such decision unsustainable.
  Hasty adjudication must be avoided. Each and every
  matter that comes to the court must be examined with the
  seriousness it deserves. What is required of any judicial
G decision is due application of mind, clarity of reasoning
  and focused consideration. [Para 21] [224-E-F]

      1.2 In the instant case, admittedly, the writ petition
  was disposed of by the High Court without calling for any
H counter-affidavit from the respondents. The appellants
 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MARTYRS MEMORIAL                   217
          TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA
have raised some serious issues concerning the action A
of the District Collector. The Secretary of the Trust also
happened to be the District Collector. He is alleged to
have not convened any meeting of the Trust and on his
own, took a decision to surrender the Government
accommodation allotted to the Trust on make believe and B
self-created grounds that the allotted Government
accommodation was not being used by the Trust for the
purpose for which it was allotted to the said Trust. The
appellants have alleged that the action of the District
Magistrate by sending the communication dated C
28.02.2009, as the Secretary of the Trust for surrendering
the Government accommodation and then passing the
order himself on 15.05.2009 cancelling the allotment was
at the behest of the political party ruling the State at that
time. It has also been alleged that this was done because D
the ruling party did not have any office in the City and so
it started putting pressure on the District Magistrate for
cancelling the Government accommodation allotted to the
Trust. These serious allegations did require response
from the District Magistrate, who wrote the letter in his E
capacity as Secretary of the Trust on 28.2.2009 to himself
and then passed an order of cancellation of allotment of
Government accommodation of the Trust in his capacity
as District Magistrate on 15.05.2009. [Para 22] [224-G-H;
225-A-D]                                                      F

     1.3 The impugned order cannot be sustained as the
writ petition filed by the appellants (petitioners before the
High Court) deserves fresh consideration and hearing
after ~eceipt of the response from the respondents. The         G
impugned order is set-aside. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
49841 of 2009 is restored to the file of the High Court for
consideration and disposal afresh. [Paras 23 and 24]
[225-E-F]
                                                                H
    218       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    4444 of 2010.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 16.09.2009 of the
  High Court of Judicature at Allababad in Civil Writ Petition No.
B 49841 of 2009.
         Ajay Vikram Singh (for Renjith. B), M. Khairati, Vikas
    Bansal (For D.S. Mahra), M.R. Shamshad, Vivek Vishnoi, Rohit
    for the Appearing Parties.

c         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       R.M. LODHA, J. 1. This appeal raises the question
  pertaining to cancellation of allotment of Government
  Accommodation Nos. 1 and 2, Civil Lines, Ballia (U.P.)
D (hereinafter referred to as "Government accommodation").

        2. Martyrs Memorial Trust (Shaheed Smarak Nyas), the
  first appellant, a public charitable trust (for short "the Trust"), was
  constituted by a deed of declaration dated June 5, 1997. The
  preamble of the Deed of Trust records that the people of India
E suffered immensely under the British Rule for more than two
  hundred years and at the call of Mahatma Gandhi, thousands
  of men and women from different walks of life joined the
  National Freedom Movement and directly associated
  themselves with various constructive programmes. It was
F decided to constitute a public charitable trust in the fond
                   •
  memory of the martyrs and freedom fighters hailing from Ballia
  and eastern Uttar Pradesh with a view to perpetuate their
  names and strengthening the task of nation building.

       3. On August 19, 1992, the then Prime Minister of India
G Mr. P.V. Narasimha Rao, on the occasion of Golden Jubilee
   Celebration of the Quit India Movement of 1942 at Ballia, had
   announced while addressing a meeting at Jay,aprakash Nagar,
 · the birth place of Shri Jayaprakash Narayan, that a sum of
   rupees one crore would be made available by the Government
H of India for the construction of Shaheed Smarak (Martyrs
  BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MARTYRS MEMORIAL                     219
    TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA [R.M. LODHA, J.]
Memorial) at Ballia. The then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh      A
also announced a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs for this purpose.

      4. In order to ensure the establishment of Shaheed
Smarak at. Ballia, the Ministry of Human Resources &
Development nominated Shri Chandra Shekhar as the
                                                                   8
President and some freedom fighters and other including ex-
officio trustees to look after various aspects of the Trust.

      5. The aims and obj~ctives declared in the trust deed, inter
alia, provide for the Trust to be a centre for perpetuating the
memory of the martyrs and freedom fighters and for carrying C
on such constructive activities as may be beneficial to the
surviving freedom fighters and their dependents; to collect,
preserve, publish and distribute various records, plans, books,
writings, lectures, letters, correspondence, teachings and
messages of the martyrs and freedom fighters together with D
their autobiographies, biographies, anecdotes and
reminiscence highlighting their feelings and sentiments against
British Tyranny and strong determination for the independence
of the country; to set up, maintain and run museum where
various relics, objects of veneration photographs, paintings, E
sketches, articles and things connected with the history of
struggle for independence have to be preserved; to establish
rapport with various educational institutions and Government
organizations, public undertakings and private enterprises for
the admission in different courses of studies and subsequent F
absorption for employment of the children and freedom fighters
on some reservation basis and to motivate, encourage and
assist people of different age groups regardless of caste,
creed, religion and sex for their active participation in various
types of suitable sports for them and to provide necessary G
coaching facilities for the same.

     6. The Deed of Trust also provides that the management
and control of the Trust and the Trust propei:ties shall vest in
the Board of Trustees which shall comp,ri~ of not less than
three nor more than fifteen trustees including the Chairman and    H
    220      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A Managing Trustee. Shri Chandra Shekhar, Shri Narayan Dutt
  Tiwari and the Secretary, Culture, Government of India were first
  three trustees; Shri Chandra Shekhar being the Chairman. In
  addition to the above, the Secretary, Culture, Government of
  Uttar Pradesh, the Accountant General, U.P (or their respective
B nominees) and District Magistrate, Ballia are made ex-officio
  trustees and they hold their office as long as they continue in
  the same capacity.

      7. Clause 11 of the Deed of Trust provides for
  appointment of new trustees. Power to sell and manage the
C immovable property is provided in clause 22.

         8. On March 27, 2002, the office of the District Collector,
    Ballia allotted Government accommodation Nos. 1 and 2 of the
    Revenue Department, Ballia to the Trust as it was lying vacant.
D   The permission for allotment of the above Government
    accommodation to the Trust was also accorded by the State
    Government. The Board of Trustees passed a resolution to
    establish l.T. Training Institute under the aegis of the Trust for
    the poor and underprivileged students. The Institute was
E   established in the name of Dr. Ganeshi Prasad, a well known
    Mathematician. The Institute had been functioning from the
    Government accommodation and also the building constructed
    on the adjoining land. The building on the adjoining land is said
    to have been constructed under the M.P. Local Area
F   Development Scheme for 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 and
    some other funds. The said Institute is authorized to run
    DOEACC Society's 'O' Level and 'CCC' courses conducted by
    the Information and Technology Ministry, Government of India.
    This Institute is recognized by the Government of India to teach
G   backward and poor students under EGTS (Employment
    Generation Training Scheme).

       9. From the communication dated June 6, 2004, sent by
  the Additional District Development Officer (Social Welfare) to
  the Managing Director, Scheduled Caste Finance and
H Development corporation Ltd., Lucknow, it transpires that on
  BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MARTYRS MEMORIAL                         221
    TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA [R.M. LODHA, J.]

physical inspection at that time, it was found that 500 students        A
had been imparted computer education in the Institute by then.
Out of the 150 students, who were being imparted education
in the Institute at the time of inspection, 80 students belonged
to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe poor families and
those students were being imparted computer education on                B
minimum fee. The communication also noted that the Institute
was equipped with 40 computers and the teachers of the
Institute were highly educated and experienced as well.

     10. Strangely, on May 15, 2009, the District Collector,            C
Ballia issued an order cancelling theallotment of Government
accommodation made in favour of the Trust on the grounds that
a request has been received from the Secretary of the Trust
vide his letter dated February 28, 2009 that allotment be
cancelled because no work of the Trust was being done from
the premises and the Trust was not using the said                       D
accommodation. The Secretary of Trust is none other than the
District Collector himself.

     11. Subsequent to the order of cancellation dated May 15,
2009, the District Collector, Ballia and other officials of the State   E
accompanied by the police force sealed the Government
accommodation although the examinations were to commence
on August 29, 2009. This led the Principal of the Institute, Mr.
Pradeep Rai to file a Writ Petition No. 44477 of 2009 before
the Allahabad High Court seeking a writ of mandamus for a               F
direction to the District Collector, Ballia and other officials of
the State to open the locks and seal.

     12. By an interim order dated August 28, 2009, the
Division Bench of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad,
directed the concerned respondents to remove the seal and               G
permitted the examinations to be held.

     13. On August 30, 2009, the trustees of the Trust wrote to
the District Officer/Secretary of the Trust to call for the meeting
of the Trust and place for consideration the letter dated               H
    222      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A February 28, 2009, sent by him to himself as District Collector
  for surrender of the Government accommodation. The said letter
  recorded that in the absence of consideration of any proposal
  by the Trust, the communication dated February 28, 2009 sent
  by the District Officer in his capacity as the Secretary of the
B Trust was not acceptable. No meeting of the Trust was called
  to discuss the matter nor the matter was considered by the Trust
  in that regard.

        14. The letter dated August 30, 2009 sent by the trustees
  of the Trust to the District Officer/Secretary of the Trust was
C followed by another letter dated September 4, 2009 reiterating
  that the meeting of the Trust be called within two days for
  discussion. with regard to the letter dated February 28, 2009
  failing which suitable action would be taken.

D        15. It was then that a Writ Petition was filed by the Trust
    being Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 49841 of 2009
    before the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

      16. In the above Writ Petition, the Trust challenged the
E order dated May 15, 2009 cancelling the allotment of
  Government accommodation in favour of the Trust.

       17. Inter alia, in the Writ Petition, it was averred that the
  Board of Trustees had passed a resolution to establish l.T.
  Training Institute under the aegis of the Trust for the poor and
F unprivileged students and they also decided to start some
  recognized courses like 'O' level and 'A' level courses from
  DOEACC Society, New Delhi. The Institute was established in
  the name of a well known Mathematician Dr. Ganeshi Prasad.
  The Trust made a proposal for establishment of education
G center for information technology under the EGTS (Employment
  General Training Scheme) to the Minister of Information &
  Technology, who having considered the proposal, granted
  sanction to start training programme for the weaker section of
  the society and released fund to the Trust for imparting
H education. The Ministry had also made available computer
  BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MARTYRS MEMORIAL 223
    TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA [R.M. LODHA, J.]
apparatus and other allied materials for implementingthe              A
scheme.

     18. After the death of Shri Chandra Shekhar, a resolution
was passed wherein it was decided that Shri Ravi Shanker
Singh - appellant No. 2 shall be the Chairman till the next           B
election was held.

     19. The appellants alleged in the Writ Petition that Bahujan
Samaj Party (BSP), which was ruling the State, did not have a
office at Ballia. BSP started putting pressure on the District
Magistrate, Ballia for cancellation of the Government                 C
accommodation and the District Magistrate, under the political
pressure, wrote a letter to himself in his capacity as Secretary
of the Trust requesting for surrender of the Government
accommodation. The misuse of the position by the District
Magistrate was also alleged. It was alleged that in the absence       D
of any resolution passed by the Board of Trustees, the decision
taken by the District Magistrate, Ballia, who happened to be
the Secretary of the Trust, to surrender the Government
accommodation to himself and then cancelling the allotment in
his capacity as District Magistrate was illegal.                      E

     20. There is nothing on record to show that counter-affidavit
was filed by the District Magistrate, Ballia or other functionaries
of the State in opposition to the Writ Petition before the High
Court. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that the Writ
Petition was disposed of by the High Court without calling for        F
any counter-affidavit from the respondents. The order of the High
Court reads as under:

     "Vide order dated 15th may, 2009 which has been
     impugned in the present Writ Petition the allotment of           G
     Government Residential Accommodation No. 1 and 2 to
     Shaheed Smarak Nyas, Basantpur, Ballia has been
     cancelled.

     We are not inclined to interfere in the said order as the
                                                                      H
    224        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A         petitioner has no vested right to continue to hold the said
          accommodation as it is only a licensee. Shri Ashok Khare,
          learned senior standing counsel assisted by Shri H.K.
          Singh has submitted that under the garb of the order dated
          15th May, 2009, the authorities are also disturbing the
B         peaceful possession of the constructions made in the
          adjoining land.

           It is not clear as to whether adjoining land is part of this
          accommodation or not. If the same is not part of the
          accommodation No. 1 and 2 then obviously under the garb
c         of this order the authorities cannot disturb the possession
          of the petitioner in respect of the constructions made on
          the adjoining land. However, if the adjoining land on which
          the construction is alleged is part of the Government
          accommodation No.1 and 2, then the authorities are
D         justified on their part. The Writ Petition is disposed of with
          the aforesaid observation. Ms. Poonam Singh, learned
          counsel has appeared for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2."

       21. Brevity in judgment writing has not lost its virtue. All long
E judgments or orders are not great nor brief orders are always
  bad. What is required of any judicial decision is due application
  of mind, clarity of reasoning and focused consideration. A
  slipshod consideration or cryptic order or decision without due
  reflection on the issues raised in a matter may render such
F decision unsustainable. Hasty adjudication must be avoided.
  Each and every matter that comes to the court must be
  examined with the seriousness it deserves.

       22. In the present case, the appellants have raised some
  serious issues concerning the action of the District Collector,
G Ballia. The Secretary of the Trust also happened to be the
  District Collector. He is alleged to have not convened any
  meeting of the Trust and on his own, took a decision to
  surrender the Government accommodation allotted to the Trust
  on make believe and self created grounds that the allotted
H Government accommodation was not being used by the Trust
 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MARTYRS MEMORIAL                        225
   TRUST v. UNION OF INDIA [R.M. LODHA, J.]
for the purpose for which it was allotted to the said Trust. The      A
appellants have alleged that the action of the District Magistrate
by sending a communication dated February 28, 2009, as the
Secretary of the Trust for surrendering the Government
accommodation and then passing the order himself on
September 15, 2009 cancelling the allotment was at the behest         B
of the BSP which was ruling the State at that time. It has also
been alleged that this was done because BSP was not having
any office in Ballia and so it started putting pressure on the
District Magistrate for cancelling the Government
accommodation allotted to the Trust. These serious allegations        c
did require response from the District Magistrate, Ballia who
wrote the letter in his capacity as Secretary of the Trust on
February 28, 2009 to himself and then passed an order of
cancellation of allotment of Government accommodation of the
Trust in his capacity as District Magistrate on May 15, 2009.         D
     23. We are satisfied that the impugned order cannot be
sustained and has to be set-aside as the Writ Petition filed by
the appellants (petitioners before the High Court) deserves fresh
consideration and hearing after receipt of the response from
the respondents.                                                      E

     24. Appeal is allowed to the above extent. The impugned
order is set-aside. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49841 of 2009
- Board of Trustees of Martyrs Memorial Trust and another vs.
Union of India and others is restored to the file of the High Court   F
of judicature at Allahabad for fresh consideration and disposal,
as noted above. The parties shall bear their own costs.

R.P.                                            Appeal Allowed.