Holding

The lease of the Begumbari land to the Taj Group was valid as the Government acted bona‑fide, considered all relevant ecological and administrative factors, and complied with the applicable statutory and policy requirements.

Summary

The petitioners filed a public‑interest writ seeking to restrain the West Bengal Government from leasing four acres of Begumbari land, part of the Alipore Zoological Garden, to the Taj Group for a five‑star hotel, alleging ecological harm to migratory birds and violation of natural‑justice principles. The Government argued that the lease was necessary to promote tourism, that ecological concerns had been considered, and that procedural requirements such as public auction were not mandatory in this socio‑economic context. The Supreme Court examined the applicability of Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution, the Bengal Public Parks Act, and the West Bengal Land Management Manual, and reviewed extensive administrative records and expert opinions. It held that the State had acted bona‑fide, taken into account relevant considerations, complied with statutory provisions, and that the lease did not prejudice the zoo or wildlife. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision.

Issues considered

Whether the State was alive to ecological considerations, especially the impact on migratory birds, before leasing the Begumbari land.
Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by not hearing the zoo’s managing committee and other stakeholders.
Whether the Bengal Public Parks Act, 1904, vested the land in the zoo’s managing committee, thereby prohibiting its transfer.
Whether the West Bengal Land Management Manual, paragraphs 165‑167, required a public auction or tender for such a lease.
Whether the lease infringed the Directive Principles (Art 48A) and Fundamental Duty (Art 51A(g)) of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Bengal Public Parks Act, 1904s. Section 3, s. Section 4
Constitution of Indias. Art. 32, s. Art. 48A, s. Art. 51A(g)
West Bengal Land Management Manual, 1977s. Paragraph 165, s. Paragraph 166, s. Paragraph 167

Subjects

public interest litigationenvironmental lawmigratory birdszoological gardenlease of government landnatural justicedirective principlesland acquisitiontourismfive‑star hotelBengal Public Parks ActWest Bengal Land Management Manual

Judgment

SACHIDANANDA PANDEY A
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

FEBRUARY 11, 1987

[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND V. KHALID, JJ.] B

Environmental law-Interference by the Supreme Court with the
policy decision of government, whenever a problem of ecology is
brought before it, extent of-Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 32,
48A, 51A(g)-Whether the Government of West Bengal was not alive to
the ecological considerations, particularly the question of the migratory C
birds and whether has shown such lack of awareness in making an
allotment of land to boost tourism by construction of Five Star Hore/ to
the detriment of Zoological garden.
Cabinet Memoranda dated January 7, 1981 and Sep. 9, ·1981 allot-
ing land for the construction of Five Star Hotel to Taj Group of D
Hotels-Whether should contain every item considered and whether
non-mention lead to adverse presumption that a particular point was not
considered.
Natural justice, Principle-Whether the principle of natural justice
is said to be violated on the ground that those who are most interested in
the Zoological garden were not heard before the decision was taken. E

New plea in the Supreme Court for the first time-Public docu-
- ment, evidentiary value of-Documents received admitted and relied on
both by the Single and Division Bench of the High Court-Plea of
authenticity of the document and objection to its reception, cannot be
~· allowed in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. F

The Bengal Public Parks Act, 1<)()4, Preamble Sections 3 and 4
scope and applicability.

West Bengal Land Management Manual, 1977, Paragraphs 165,
166, 167, applicability of-Whether the procedure prescribed therein G
not being followed, the transfer of the land to Taj Group of Hotels is
bad.

Disposal by Public auction or by inviting tenders-Whether
bound to be followed by the State, in pursuing the socio-economic
objectives enshrined in the Constitution. H

223
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

Public Interest Litigation, parameters. delineation need for stres-
A
sed.

There is in Calcutta, a Zoological garden located in Alipore, now
almost the heart of Calcutta, on either side of Belvedere Road, one of
Calcutta's main arterial roads, fortynine acres of land on one side and
B eight acres on the other. The main zoo is in the fortynine acres block of
land. The said eight acres of land was outside the Zoological garden and
\.-
separated from it by a 80-100 feet road and is also known as the
Begumbari land. The Begumbari land was given to the Zoological
garden in 1880. According to a letter written on July 7, 1880 by the
Assistant Secretary to the Government of Bengal in the Public works
C Department to Mr. L. S10hwandler, Honorary Secretary Zoological
garden conveying the sanction of the Lt. Governor for the transfer of
the Begumbari land to the charge of the Committee of the Zoological
Garden, on the terms agreed to by the Committee in their letter dated
April 23, 1880, the conditions of the transfer were: "(i) that the land is
to be used for the purpose of acclimatization only; (ii) that Carnivors
D are not to be kept ou any part of it, on any account; (iii) that the
grounds are to be kept clear and neat; (iv) that the land must be re-
stored to the government if hereafter required, the Zoological Garden
Committee being reimbursed for any expenditure they may have ineur-
red in building there." In this eight acres of land there are some old
buildings and the vacant land was used for fodder cultivation,for rais-
E ing Dower nursery, as a sumping ground for huge garbages and as
burial ground for dead animals.

In January, 1979, the Director General of Tourism Government
of India addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary Government of West
Bengal conveying the Resolution of the Tourism conference which was
F presided over by the Union Minister of Tourism and attended by several
State Ministers and requesting that land in good location may be made
available for construction of hotels in a drive to encourage tourism. In
May, 1980, the Taj Group of Hotels came forward with a suggestion
that they would be able to constrnct a Five Star Hotel. On September
29. 1980 and November 29, 1980, there were two notes by the Secretary
G of the Metropolitan Development Department to the effect that the
I.T.D.C. was interested in a property known as the Hastings Honse
Properly and that the Taj Group of Hotels who considered the Hastings
House properly unsuitable may b1! offered four acres out of the eight
acres of Begumbari land. On the same day the Taj Group of Hotels
wrote to the Government of West Bengal stating that the proposed land
H could be seriously considered for construction of a hotel. Thereafter.
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STATE OF W. BENGAL 225

the Chief Minister along with the Minister of Tourism and the Minister
A
r for Metropolitan Development visited the site accompanied by the Di-
rector of the Zoo to apparently knew about the proposal right from the
start. A note was then prepared by the Secretary, Metropolitan
Development Department and put up to the Chief Minister for his
r approval. The Chief Minister approved the proposal and required it to
be placed before the Cabinet. On .January 7, 1981 a memorandum was B
prepared for the consideration of the Cabinet explaining the need for

I the more Five Star Hotels in Calcutta and the benefits flowing out of the

... ..,,
construction and establishment of such Five Star Hotels and suggesting
the lease of Hastings House Property to the I.T.D.C. Group and the
Begumbari property to the Taj Group of Hotels. In regard to the
Begumbari property, it was stated: "From the property of the Zoologi-
cal Gardens on the Belvedere Road it is possible to carve out about four
c
·y acres of land currently used for dumping garbage and also for growing
grass for the elephants. It will be necessary and in any case advisable to
shift the dumping ground. While adequate space can be made available
for growing grass elsewhere in the same area." It was stated that the
Finance and Tourism Departments had agreed to the proposal to lease D
the properties to the I.T.D.C. and the Taj Group respectively. It was
stated that though the Forest Department had suggested that Salt Lake
was a better place for establishing a Five Star Hotel, there was no
j demand for a Five Star Hotel in that area and the request for a hotel in
Salt Lake was confined to a Three Star Hotel. Cabinet approval was
sought for the offers to be made to the I.T.D.C. and to the Taj Group E
and for the constitution of a suitable Committee to undertake negotia-
lions with the two groups.

On February 12, 1981, the Cabinet took a decision approving the
....... proposal contained in the last paragraph of the Cabinet Memorandum,
thus clearing the way for negotiations with the Taj Group. F
,,
Meanwhile the Public Undertakings Committee appointed hy the
West Bengal Legislative Assembly submitted a report on 14.2.1981
about the Zoo. While suggesting that the government may consider
abandoning the proposal to set up a hotel on the eastern side of the zoo,
the Committe also referred to a proposal to establish a "Subsidiary G
·~ Zoo" some slight distance from Calcutta and the request said to have
been made for the allotment of 200 acres ofland for that purpose.

The Chief Town Planner who visited the site at the request of the
Secretary, Metropolitan Development Department and in the presence
of the Director of the Zoo, suggested that 2 to 2'h acres of land might be H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A made available for the Hotel.

On March 19, 1981 the Taj Group submitted a proposal to the
government containing fairly detailed information about the tourism
industry and its needs, the situation in Calcutta, the realities of Hotel
l
construction the facts relating to what had been done in other cities, the
B benefits flowing out of the construction of hotels and their own pro-
posals for constructing a hotel in the four acres of land in Belvedere
Road. Two alternative fmancial arrangements were suggested. The first
alternative was the payment of annual rent on the basis of the valuation
of the land, the second alternative was based on the concept of nett
sales, nett sales being defined as sales after deducting all taxes and
C levies and service charges. The Metropolitan Development Department
expressed a preference for the second alternative and suggested the
constitution of a Committee. The Finance Department also approved.
The Taj Group was invited to send the financial projection on the basis
of the second alternative. Correspondence went on. On June 5, 1981 a
Committee of Secretaries was formally constituted. In the meanwhile
D WEBCON, a West Bengal Government Consultancy Undertaking, was
asked to examine the proposals and to advise the Government.

On June 11, 1981, the Managing Committee of the Zoo passed a
resolution expressing itself against the proposal to construct a hotel on
land belonging to the Zoo. Accepting the note put up by the Secretary
E Metropolitan Development Department on the said resolution the Chief
Minister minuted that "if further facilities are necessary for the zoo,
the government will provide for them." On June 25, 1981, the Manag-
ing Committee met again and passed another resolution by which they
withdrew their earlier objections dated 11.6.1981. --t•··
F On June 29, 1981, the Director of the Zoo, who was a party to all
the proceedings etc. right from the beginning wrote to the Secretary of
Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Department stating
' '
his objections to the proposal to lease the land for construction of a
hotel.

G On July 14, 1981, the WEBCON submitted its report and on the
request of the Committee of Secretaries a further report was submitted /-. ·,
on July 22, 1981. The report of WEBCON is a comprehensive report on
various topics connected with the establishment of a Five Star Hotel in
Calcutta. Among other things the report also suggested various fman-
cial alternatives and recommended the second alternative based on nett
H sales as the best.
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STATE OF W. BENGAL 227

Meanwhile negotiations with Taj Group proceeded apace. The A
WEBCON submitted further reports. Taj Group suggested further
modifications. On September 9, 1981 a detailed memorandum \l\llS pre-
pared for cabinet discussion. Two alternative financial proposals were
set out. A reference was made to the Committee of Secretaries who
negotiated with the Taj Group of Hotels. Note was taken of the sugges-
tion of the Negotiation Committee that the overall development plan for B
the environmental beautification, widening of approach roads, land-
scaping of Tolley's Nullah were responsibilities of the State Govern-
ment and estimated to cost Rs.2 crores but that it was expected to be of
considerable public benefit. Stress was laid on the direct and indirect
economic activities which would be generated by the establishment of a
five Star Hotel. Reference was also made to the report of WEBCON and
it was noted that the projected profitability of the venture to the govern-
c
ment was expected to be high. It was also mentioned that the Ministers,
incharge of Tourism, Animal Husbandry, Land Revenue and Finance
~ had seen the note and had agreed to it. On September 10, 198 I the
'
, Cabinet took the final decision to grant a ninety-nine years lease of the
four acres of Begumbari land to the Taj Group of Hotels. On Septem- D

l ber 29, 1981 the Government of West Bengal officially conveyed its
acceptance of the proposal of the Taj Group of Hotels for the construc-
tion of a Five Star Hotel. The terms and conditions of the lease were set
IJ;.·out. On January 7, 1982, there was a joint meeting of the Establishment
' and Finance sub-Committees of the Zoo and it was decided to recom-
mend to the Committee of management that the demarcated area of E
four acres may be relinquished in favour of Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Services Department subject to the requirement that the zoo
will continue to get the services. and the facilites in the existing
. structures until they were reconstructed on the adjacent land. On
~

• January 11, 1982 the Managing Committee endorsed the view of the
sub-committees and this was communicated to the government. On F
January 15, 1982, the Government of West Bengal wrote to the Land
Acquisition Officer, with copies to the Taj Group of Hotels directing the
Land Acquisition Officer to give possession of the land to the Taj-Group
of Hotels subject to their later executing a proper long term lease. It was
mentioned in the letter that the construction of the Hotel should not be
started till the lease deed was executed and registered. Several other G
stipulations were also made. Though the stipulation was that the cost
of the new construction was to be initially met by Taj Group of Hotels
and later to be adjusted against the rent payable by Taj Group, the Taj
Group later agreed to waive such reimbursement (in fact a total sum of
Rs.30 lakhs has been spent by Taj Group of Hotels in connections with
the reconstruction. Not only this, land in the extent of 288 square H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

meters out of the plot given to them was carved out and given back for ;
A accommodating part of the reconstructed structures.

Pursuant to the letter dated January 15, 1982 possession was ·
given to Taj Group• on January 16, 1982. Thereafter an expert commit·
tee was constitued to supervise the construction of alternative facilities.
B
Five petitioners-a Trade Unionist, two life members of the Zoo,
two other bonafide residents of Greater Calcutta, all lovers of wild
life-filed a petition in public interest on 26.2. 1982. Initially the relief
sought was primarily to restrain the Zoo authorities from giving effect
to the two Resolutions dated January 7, 1982 and January 17, 1982 to
hand over the four acres to the Animal Husbandry Department of the
c Government. Subsec111ent to the filing of the writ petition a lease deed
was executed by the Taj Group of Hotels in favour of the government.
The Writ Petition wais therefore amended and a prayer for cancellation
was added.

D While the writ petition was pending in the High Court, Late Smt.
Indira Gandhi wrote a letter to Sri Jyothi Basu, the Chief Minister of .
West Bengal expressing the hope that he would not allow the Calcutta
Zoo to suffer in any manner and would leave it intact. The Chief Minis·
ter in his reply letter dated 21.8.82 pointed out that:(i) the four acres o '.
land were agreed to be relinquished by the Committee of management fJ
E of the Zoological Garden on condition that alternative arrangement ·~
were made for shifting the existing structures which were necessary for '
the Zoo from the plot in question to the adjacent plot; (ii) the plot in ,·.
question was not a part of the Zoo Garden; (iii) till the existing ,
structures are relocated on the adjacent land, the zoo would continue to :iii
get their services and facilities from the existing structures. (iv) the · ·
F hotel was not the only !all building since there existed many such resi·
dential buildings to which none raised an object.ion and that P&T
Department are also constructing one such tall building; and (v) the
lessee and their experts on wild life had assured them that in any case
adequate precaution would be taken in regard to illumination of the
hotel and the layout of the sorrounding so that no disturbance would be ;,
G caused to the flight path of the birds or animals. To similar effect was .,
the letter dated 30.8.1982 from Shri J.R.D. Tata to the Prime Minister
on September 1, 1982. Smt. Indira Gandhi wrote to Mr. Tata expres·
sing her happiness that the hotel was not going to upset the Zoo animals
and welcoming his offer to help the State Government to improve the
Zoo's facilities.
H
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STATE OF W. BENGAL 229

A learned Single Jndge of the High Court dismissed the writ
A
petition holding that the West Bengal Government did not show any
lack of awareness of the problem of environment ecology in granting the
lease of land. On appeal, a Division Bench confirmed the said judg-
ment. Hence the appeal by Special leave of the Court.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court, B

HELD: (Per Chinnappa Reddy J.) 1. I Whenever a problem of
ecology is brought before the Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind
Art. 48 A of the Constitution the Uirective Principle which enjoins that
"The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment
and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country, "and
Art. 5 lA(g) Which proclaims it to be the fundamental duty of every
c
citizen of India "to protect and improve the natural environment in-
cluding forest, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for
living creatures." When the Court is called upon to give effect to the
Directive Principle and the fundamental duty, the l:ourt is not to shrug its
shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is D
matter for the policy making authority. The least that the court may do
is to examine whether appropriate considerations are borne in mind
irrelevancies excluded. In appropriate cases, the Court may go further,
l but how much further must depend on the circumstances of the case.
The court may always give necessary directions. However the Court
will not attempt to nicely balance relevant considerations. When the E
question involves the nice balancing of relevant considerations, the
court may feel justified in resigning itself to acceptance of the decision
of the concerned authority. If the Government is alive to the various
considerations requiring thought and ~eliberation and has arrived at a
conscious decision after taking them into account, it may not be for the
court to interfere in the absence of mala fides. On the other hand, if F
relevant considerations are not borne in mind and irrelevant considera-
tions influence the decision, the Court may interfere in order to prevent
a likelihood of prejudice to the public. [242B-F]

1.2 Applying the above guidelines to be followed when questions
of ecology and environment are raised, it is clear that the facts and G
circumstances brought out by the appellants do not justify an inference
that the construction of the proposed hotel in the Begumbari land would
interfere in any manner with the animals in the Zoo and the birds
arriving at the zoo or otherwise disturb the ecology. The proposed hotel
is a Garden-hotel and there is perhaps every chance of the ecology and
environment improving as a result of planting numerous trees all H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A around the proposed hotel and the removal of the burial ground and
. dumping ground for rubbiish. [263A-B]

1.3 That the questiion of ~bstruction which may be caused to
migratory birds did not go unnoticed by the government before the
decision to lease the land was taken, is clear from the following: (i) the
B question of the migratory bird was first raised in the resolution of the
Managing Committee dated June 11, 198 l. This resolution was for-
warded to the Chief Minister and considered by him as evident from the
note of the Chief Minister and the subsequent reversal of the Managing
Committee's resolution al the instance of the Chief Minister and on his
assurance; (ii) that the government was aware of the dissension based
on the alleged obstruction likely to be caused by a multi-storeyed build-
c ing to the flight of the migratory birds appears from the letter of the
Chief Minister to the Prime Minister. In this letter, the Chief Minister
pointed out that there were already in existence a number of multi-
storeyed buildings all around the Zoological Garden, but there was no
report that they had any adverse effect on the migratory birds or the
D animals. He also pointed out that all precautions would be taken in the
matter of illumination of' the hotel and lay out of the surroundings so
that no disturbance woulld be caused to the flight path of the birds or
animals; (iii) Shri J.R.D. Tata, on behalf of the Taj Group of Hotels
also wrote to the Prime Minister assuring her that the hotel manage-
ment had discussed the matter at length with a representative of the
E Wild Life Fund who, after discussion had been satisfied that the pro-
posed hotel would cause no disturbance to the birds. He further assured
her that he had himself gone thoroughly in to the project with the special
reference to the possible impact on the birds and the environment and
had satisfied himself that project would not cause any disturbance to
the birds or their free movement. He pointed out that the four acre plot
F was not within the main Zoological Garden, but was separated from it
by the Belvedere Road which was an important thoroughfare in the
city. It was about 700 feet from the main part of the lake. The hotel was
proposed to be built away from the frontage of the plot in Belvedere
Road and was to be a low-rise structure, the highest point of which
would not exceed 75 feet, far below the trajectory of the birds. He
G mentioned that Dr. Biswas a renowned ornithologist had also been
consulted by the Taj Management and he had also confirmed that a 75
feet building would not interfere with the landing or climbing out of the
birds from the lake. He further mentioned that the grounds of the Zoo
between the lake and the Belvedere Road were covered with tall trees
and that the birds negotiating the trees would have to Dy at a steeper angle
H than it would be necessary to negotiate the proposed hotel. The vehicu-
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STATE OF W. BENGAL 231

tar traffic on Belvedere Road which ·.fas also heavy did not bother the
( birds and the slight increase of the vehicular traffic consequent on the
A
construction of the hotel was also not likely to bother them either. It was
also pointed out that particular care would be taken in the matter of
illumination of the hotel so that bright lights or neon signs emanating
from the hotel would not disturb the birds and animals. In the circum·
stances, the government was alive to the ecological considerations B
particularly the question of the migratory birds. [260E·H; 261A-E]

2. 1 It is wrong to think that every thing not mentioned in the
Cabinet Memoranda did not receive consideration by the government.
In the instant case the process of choosing and alloting the land to the Taj
Group of Hotels nearly took two years during the course of which C
objections of various kinds were raised from time to time. It was not
-f
necessary that everyone of these objections should have been mentioned
and considered in each of the Cabinet Memoranda. [260C-E]

2.2 The proposition that a decision must be arrived at after
taking into account all relevant considerations, eschewing all irrlevant D
considerations cannot for a moment be doubted. In the ~nstant case,
relevant considerations were not ignored and indeed were taken into
consideration by the Government of West Bengal. It is not one of those
cases where the evidence is first gathered and a decision is later arrived
at one fine morning and the decision is incorporated in a reasoned
order. This is a case where discussion had necessarily to stretch over a E
long period of time. Several factors have to be independently and sepa·
rately weighed and considered. This is a case where the decision and the
reasons for the decision could only be gathered by looking at the entire
course of events and circumstances stretching over the period from the
initiation of the proposal to the taking of the final decision. The argu-
ment that what was not said in either of the Cabinet Memoranda could F
not later be supplemented by considerations which were never present
in the mind of the decision making authority is not correct. l263E-G I

Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal, [ 1969] 3 SCR 108 and
Barium Chemicalsv. A.G. Rana, [ 1972] 2 SCR 752, referred to.
G
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Central Election Commission, [ 1978] 2
SCR 273, distinguished.

3. There was no failure to observe the principles of Natural
Justice. Such as those as were really interested in the matter like the
Managing Committee of the Zoological Garden and the Director of the H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

Zoo did have their say in the matter. The Public Undertakings Commit- \
A
tee in its report discussed the matter and invited the Government's
attention to various factors. The matter was further discussed on the
floor of the Legislative A!isembly. l264B· DI

4. 1 The two letters dated 23.4. 1880 and 7. 7. 1880, pertaining to

j
B the grant relating to the lransfer of land to the east of Belvedere Road,
known as Begnmbari land in 1880, produced from old official records,
are public documents within the meaning of the Evidence Act. No objec-
tion either to the authenticity or to the admissibility of the documents
was taken either before the Single Judge or before the Division Bench.
The Managing Committee of the Zoological Garden never doubted the
authenticity of the documents, nor was any question even raised to
c suggest that the terms of the grant were other than those mentioned in
the letters. [265C-EJ ~
4.2 The new plea relating to authenticity or admissiblity of
evidence cannot be accepted in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Con-
D stitntion. The land which was undoubtedly government land was given
to .the Zoological Garden upon the terms set out in the two letters. One
of the terms was that the land should be restored to the government
whenever required. Another terms was that tbe Zoological Garden )
Committee would be suifably compensated for any expenditure incur-
red by it on the construction of any building on the land. [26SE]
E
S. 1 It is true that the Act of the legislature cannot be undone by a
mere act of the Executive. This is not a case where the statute vests land
in the Committee and the Executive takes it away by its fiat. The
~
Begnmbari land was gove.-nment land transferred to the charge of the I
Zoological Garden Committee in 1880 in accordance with the condi- I
F lions and terms agreed to by the Committee in their letter dated
23.4.1880; namely; "(i) that the land is to be used for the purpose of
acclimatization only; (ii) that Carnivors are not to be kept on any part
of it, on any account; (iii) that the grounds are to be kept clear and neat;
(iv) that the land must be restored to the government if hereafter re-
quired. The Zoological Garden Committee being reimbursed for any
G expenditure they may have incurred in building there." Therefore, this )
is a case of resumption of Government land under the terms of
Agreement. [264E-H; 26SA-BJ

5.2 From the Preamble and the provisions of the Bengal Public
Parks Act, 1904, it is clear that the Act is intended to protect the
H inmates and the property of the park from injury by persons resorting
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STATE OF Vv. BENGAL 233

to the park from molestations or annoyance by others. The Act is aimed A
at protecting the part and its visitiors from injnry and annoyance by
despoilers and merauders. The Act bas nothing whatever to do with the
vesting of any property in the parks. There is in fact no provision
which deal with the vesting of property in a park. Section 3 enables the
State Government to extend by a notifiootion, the boundaries of a park
but that can only be for the purposes of the Act and not for the purpose B
of vesting or creating any title in a property. If a piece of adjacent land,
for example, is taken on lease for a specified number of years by the
park and inclnded in the park by a notification nnder s .3 it does not
mean that the varions things, the doing of which is regnlated or pF«>-
bibited by the Act and the rule will not be done or will be regulated on
the adjacent land also. The provisions of the Bengal Public Parks Act C
have no relevance to the qnestion of the power of the government to
transfer the Begumbari land to the Taj Group of Hotels. [266C-F]

6.1 Statutes and statutory orders have no doubt to be obeyed. It
does not mean that other orders, instructions, etc. may be departed
from in an individual case, if applicable to the facts. They ar• not to be D
ignored until amended. The government or the Borad may have the
power to amend these orders and instructions, but nonetheless they must
be obeyed so long as they are in force and are applicable. But, from the
perusal of the provisions of paragraphs 165 to 167 of the West Bengal
Land Management Manual, it is clear that these provisions of the Land
Management Manual do not appear to have anything to do with the E
transfer and use of the land in the manner proposed, in which the
State also have a vital stake apart from the mere raising of revenue for
the State. Paragraphs 165, 166 and 167 deal with simple cases of crea-
tion of non-agricultural tenancies by way of long term leases. They
generally deal with land which is at the disposal of the government as
waste or surplus land and are intended to secure the best revenue for F
the State. They do not deal with cases of transfer of land for a specific
soci&-economic object, where, the securing of immediate revenue is not the
principal object but other social and economic benefits are sought. l267E-Hl

6.2 The following propositions may be taken as well established
on a considerations of the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. State G
owned or public-owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute
discretion of be ~xecutive. Certain precepts and principles have to be
observed. Public interest is the paramount consideration. One of the
methods of securing the public interest, when it is considered necessary
to dispose of a property, is to sell the property by public auction or by
inviting tenders. Though that is the ordinary rule. it is not an invariable H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 2 S.C.R.

rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons neces-
A
sitating departure from the rule, bnt then the reasons for the departure
must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appear-
ance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Nothing should be
done which gives an appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism. [2730-F)

B 6.3 Applying .the above tests, it cannot be held that the govern-
ment of West Bengal did not act with probity in not inviting tenders or
in not holding a public auction but negotiating straight away at arm's
lenght with the Taj Group of Hotels, in its pursuit or socio-economic _
objective of encouraging tourism and earning more foreign exchange.
In the present case no one has come forward alleging that he has been
discriminated against and his fundamental right to carry on business
c had been affected. The very natm·e of the construction and estllhlish- \
ment of a Five Star Hotel is indicative of a requirement of expertise and
sound financial position on the part of those who might ofl'er to con-
struct and establish them. The decision taken by the All-India Tourism
Council was an open dedsion well-known to everyone in the hotel busi-
D ness. Yet no one except the I.T.O.C. and the Taj Group of Hotels had
come forward with any proposal. The Oberoi Group of Hotels already
had a Five Star Hotel in Calcutta while the Welcome Group of Hotels
were making their ow1n Private negotiations and arrangements for
establishing a Five Star Hotel. In the circumstances, particularly in the
absence of any leading hotliers coming forward, the government of
E West Bengal was perfectly justified in entering into negotiation with the
I. T.D.C. and the Taj Gronp of Hotels insted of inviting tenders. Nego-
tations with those who lllad come forward with proposals to construct
Five Star Hotels was without doubt the most reasonable and rational
way of proceeding in the' matter rather than inviting tenders or holding
public auction. There was nothing discriminatory to the procedure
F adopted since no other leading hotlier had shown any inclination to
come forward. Tenders and auction were most impractical in the
circumstances. The choice of the Taj Group of Hotels must therefore be
held to be beyond suspicion and above reproach. [273F; 2680-F]

Rash Bihari Panda v. State of Orissa, [ 1969] SCR 374; R.B.
G Shetty v. International Airport Authority, [1979] 3 SCR 1014; Kasturi
Lal Laxmi Reddy v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, [ 1980] 3 SCR 1338;
State of Haryana v.JagaRam, [l983] 4SCC 56; Ram and Shyam Co. v.
State of Haryana, [ 1985] 3 SCC 267 and Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Govt.
of Andhra Pradesh, [ 1986) 3 SCC 391, discussed.

H 7. 1 On a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STATE OF W. BENGAL 235

case, it is clear, that the government of West Bengal acted perfectly
A
bonafide in granting the lease of Begumbari land to the Taj Group of
Hotels for the construction of a Five Star Hotel in Calcutta. The govern-
ment of West Bengal did not fail to take into account any relevant
consideration. Its action was not against the interest of the Zoological
Garden or not in the best interests of the animal inmates of the zoo or
migrant birds visiting the zoo. The financial interests of the State were B
in no way sacrificed either by not inviting tenders or holding a public
auction or by adopting the "nett sales" method. [274C-EJ

7.2 The "nett sales" method appears to be fairly well known
method adopted in similar situations. This what was recommended by
WEBCON, the consulting agency of the West Bengal Government which
submitted a detailed report on the subject. This was also the recommen-
c
dation of the Committee of Secretaries who went into the matter in
death, even to lay persons who are no financial experts, it appears that the
"nett sales" method does and the rent-based-on-market-value method
does not take into account the appreciating value of land, the inflatio-
nary tendency of the prices and the profit orientation. Even on a prima D
a facie view, there appears to be nothing wrong. or objectionable in the
"nett sales" method. It is profit oriented and appears to be in the best
interests of the Goverument of West Bengal. [274A-C]

Per Kah/id J. (concurring)
E
I. Today public spirited litigants rush to courts to file cases in
profusion under attractive name Public Interest Litigation. They must
inspire confidence in courts and amongst the public. They must be above
suspicions. Public Interest Litigation ha' now come to stay. Bue one is
led to think that it poses a threat to courts and public alike. Such cases
are now filed without any rhyme or reason. It is, therefore, necessary to F
lay down clear guide-lines and to outline the correct parameters for
entertainment of such petitions. If courts do not restrict the free flow of
such cases in the name of Public Interest Litigations, the traditional
litigation will suffer and the courts of law, instead of dispensing justice,
will have to take upon themselves administrative and executive func-
tions. This does not mean that traditional litigation should stay put. G
They have to be tackled by other effective methods, like decentralising
the judicial system and entrusting majority of traditional litigation to
village courts and Lok Adalats without the usual populist stance and by
a complete restructuring of the procedural law which is the villain in
delaying disposal of cases. It is only when courts are apprised of gross
violation of fundamental rights by a group or a class action or when H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A basic human rights are invaded or when there are complaints of such
acts as shock the judicial conscience that the courts, especially Ibis
Court, should leave aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions
and extend its jurisdiction under all available provisions for remedying
the hardships and miseries of the needy, the under-dog and the neglec-
ted. Extending help when help is required does not mean that the doors
B of the Supreme Court are always open to anyone to walk in. It is necessary
to have some self imposed restrained on public interest litigants, so that
this salutorytype oflitigatiolll does notlose its credibility. [275C; 279A-F]

2. The approach of the Taj Group Hotels in this case has been
creditably fair. They have given all the assurances necessary to preserve
the Zoo and its inmates. They were willing to afford all the requisite
c
safeguards. In the place of a dilapidated hospital, operation theati-e and
the like, they constructed buildings, a new at a cost of Rs. 30 laklts
which amount they were entitled to be reimbursed under cl. 25 of the
lease, which they voluntarily gave up. In addition to this, they sur-
rendered an area of 288 sq. metrs. from the land allotted to them to the
D Zoo. They agreed to build not the usual sky scrapper hotel, but a
garden hotel, the height of which would not go beyond 75 feet, despite
the fact that there existed in the surroundings area buildings which
were very high. This was done to keep free the route of the flight of the
birds. They agreed to have subdued light in the hotel, again in the
ineterest of the birds. They also agreed to keep the sorroundings of the
E hotel and the flora well maintained and already 30,000 plants were
getting ready to adjorn the area to be occupied by them. l277H; 278A-C]

3. 1 Regarding the commercial and financial aspects of the lease
also, there is nothing secretive. The method adopted is the nett sales
method of calculating the compensation paid, which i.; a well known
F method adopted in snch situations like the one, here namely lease of
land by the Government. [278C-E]

3.2 A deal like the one is given cannot be concluded by public
auction as it is not a case of sale of a government property. Being not a
sale but a lease of land by the government public auction has necessarily
G to be ruled out. Only Taj Group of Hotels came forward with an offer to )
start the hotel. The lease was lhe culmination after a long, elaborate /
and open procedure with nothing to hide which therefore cannot justifi-
ably be subject to adverse criticism. [278G-H]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 378
H of 1987.
SACHIDANANDA PANDEYv. STATE OFW. BENGAL [REDDY,J.] 237

Ir From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.1986 of the Calcutta A
II' High Court in F.M.A.T. No. 1500of1984.

L.M. Singhvi S.K. Jain, I. Makwana, A.M. Singhvi, Sudhanshu
Atreya and S.D. Sharma for the Appellants.

N.N. Gooptu, Dipanker Gupta P. Monda!, D.K. Sinha, J.R. B
Das, T. Ray. R. Pal, B.R. Agarwala and Ms. S. Manchanda for the
Respondent.

The following Judgments of the Court were delivered:

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. We grant special leave and proceed C
to dispose of the appeal.

A hundred and thirty-two years ago, in 1854, 'the wise Indian
Chief of Seattle' replied to the offer of 'the great White Chief in
Washington' to buy their land. The reply is profound. It is beautiful.
It is timeless. It contains the wisdom of the ages. It is the first ever and D
the most understanding statement on environment. It is worth quot-
ing. To abridge it or to quote extracts from it is to destroy its beauty.
You cannot scratch a painting and not diminish its beauty. We will
quote the whole of it:

*"How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? E
The idea is strange to us.

"If we do not own the freshness of the air and the
sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?

"Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. F
Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in
the dark woods, every clearing and humming insect is holy
in the memory and experience of my people. The Sap
which courses through the trees carries the memories of the
red man.
G
"The white man's dead forget the country of their
birth when they go to walk among the stars. Our dead
never forget this beautiful earth, for it is the mother of the

*Reproduced verbatim from Pariyavaran Vol. I No. 1, June 1984.
H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

red man. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The
A perfumed flowers are our sisters; the horse, the great eagle,
these are our brothers. The rockly crests, the juices in the
meadows, the body heat of the pony, and man-all belong
to the same family.

"So, when the Great Chief in Washington sends word
B
that he wishes to buy our land, he asks much of us. The
Great Chief sends word he will reserve us a place so that we
can live comfortably to ourselves. He will be our father and
we will be his children. So we will consider your offer to
buy our land. But it will not be easy. For this land is sacred
J;
to us.
c
''This shining water moves in the streams and rivers is \-
not just water but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you
land, you must remember that it is sacred, and you must
teach your children that it is sacred and that each ghostly
reflection in the clear water of the lakes tells of events and
D
memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is
the voice of my father's father.

"The rivers are our brothers, they quench our thirst. ~
The rivers carry our canoes, and food our children. If we
sell you our land, you must remember, and teach your
E
children, that the rivers are our brothers, and yours and
you must henceforth give the kindness you would give any
brother.
_..Jrr
I
"We know that the white man does not understand
our ways. One portion of, land is the same to him as the 1
F
next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes \
from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his
brother but his enemy, and when he has conquered it, he
moves on. He leaves his fathers' graves behind, and he
does not care.
G )'---
"He kidnaps the earth from his children. His father's
grave and his children's birth-right are forgotten. He treats
his mother, the earth, and his brother, the sky, as things to
be bought, plundered, sold like sheep or bright beads. His
appetite will devour the earth and leave behind only a
H desert.
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STATE OFW. BENGAL [REDDY, J.) 239

"I do not know. Our ways are different from your A
ways. The sight of your cities pains the eyes of the red man.
But perhaps it is because the red man is a savage and does
not understand.

"There is no quite place in the white man's cities. No
place to hear the unfurling of leaves in spring or the rustle B
of an insect's wings. But perhaps it is because I am a savage
and do not understand. The clatter only seems to insult the
ears. And what is there to life if a man cannot hear the
lonely cry of the whippoorwill or the arguments of the
frogs around a pond at night? I am a red man and do not
understand. The Indian prefers the soft sound of the wind C
darting over the face of a pond, and the small of the wind
itself, cleansed by a mid-day rain, or scented with the pinon
pine.

The air is precious to the red man, for all things share
the same breath-the beast, the tree, the man, they all 0
share the same breath. The white man does not seem to
notice the air he breathes. Like a man dying for many days,
he is numb to the stench. But if we sell you our land, you
must remember that the air is precious to us, that the air
shares its spirit with all the life it supports. The wind that
gave our grandfather his first breath also receives the last E
sigh. And if we sell you our land, you must keep it apart
and sacred as a place where even the white man can go to
taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadows flowers.

"So we will consider your offer to buy our land. If we
decide to accept, I will make one condition. The White F
man must treat the beasts of this land as his brothers.

"I am a savage and I do not understand any other
way. I have seen a thousand rotting buffaloes on the
prairie, left by the white man who shot them from a passing
train. I am a savage and I do not understand how the smok- G
ing iron horse can be more important than the buffalo that
we kill only to stay alive.

"What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts
were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of spirit.
H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

For whatever happens to the beasts soon happens to man.
A
All things are connected.

"You must teach your children that the ground be-
neath their feet is the ashes of our grandfathers. So that
they will respect the land. Tell your children that the earth
B is rich with the lives of our kin. Teach your children what
we have taught our children. that the earth if sun mother.
Whatever befallls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. If
men spit upon the ground. they spit upon themselves.
r,
I

"This we know: The earth does not belong to man;
)'.
man belongs to the earth. This we know: All things are
c connected. like the blood which unites one family. All
things are connected.

"Whatever befails the earth befalls the sons of the
earth. Man did not weave to web of life: he is merely a
D strand in it. Whatever he does to the web he does to
himself.

"Even the white man, whose God walks and talks
with him as friend to friend, cannot be exempt from the ,A._.
common destiny. We may be brothers after all. We shall ·
E see. One thing we know, which the white man may one day
discover-our God is the same God. You may think now
that you own Him as you wish to own our land; but you
cannot. He is the God of man, and His compassion is equal
for the red man and the white. This earth is precious to -~
Him, and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its
F Creater. The white too shall pass; perhaps sooner than all 1
other tribes. Contaminate your bed and you will one night I
suffocate in your own waste.

"But in your perishing you will shine brightly, fired
by the strength of the God who brought you to this land
G and for some special purpose gave you dominion over this
land and over the red man. That destiny is a mystery to us, )...,.
for we do not understand when the wild buffalo are all
slaughtered, the wild horses are tamed, the secret corners
of the forest heavy with scent of many man and the view of
the ripe hills blotted by talking wires. Where is the thicket?
H
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STATE OF W. BENGAL [REDDY, J .) 241

Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone. The end of living and the
A
beginning of survival."

Today society's interaction with nature is so extensive that the
environmental question has assumed proportions affecting all huma-
nity. Industrialisation, urbanisation, explosion of population, over-
exploitation of resources, depletion of traditional sources of energy B
and raw materials and the search for new sources of energy and raw
materials, the disruption of natural ecological balances, the destruc-
tion of a multitude of animal and plant species for economic reasons
and sometimes for no good reason at all are factors which have con-
tributed to environmental deterioration. While the scientific and tech-
nological progress of man has invested him with immense power over
nature, it has also resulted in the unthinking use of the power,
c
encroaching endlessly on nature. If man is able to transform deserts
into cases, he is also leaving behind deserts in the place of cases. In the
last century, a great German materialist philospher warned mankind:
"Let us not, however, flatter ourselves orvermuch on account of our
human victories over nature. For each such victory nature takes its D
revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place bringss about
the results we expected, but in the second and third places it has quite
different, unforeseen effects which only too often cancel the first."
Ecologists are of the opinion that the most important eoological and
social problem is the wide-spread disappearance all over the world of
certain species of living organisms. Biologists forecast the extinction of E
animal and plant species on a scale that is inoomparably greater than
their extinction over the course of milliolls of years. It is said that over
half the species which became extinct over the last 2,000 years did so
after 1900. The International Association for the Protection of Nature
and Natural Resources calculates that now, on an average, one species
or sub-species is lost every year. It is said that approximately 1,000 F
bird and animal species are facing extinction at present. So it is that the
environmental question has bacame urgent and it has to be properly
understood and squarely met by man. Nature and history, it has been
said, are two component parts of the environment is which we live,
move and prove ourselves.
G
In India, as elsewhere in the world, uncontrolled growth and the
consequent environmental deterioration are fast assuming menacing
proportions and all Indian cities are afflicted with this problem. The
once Imperial City of Calcutta is.no exception. The question raised in
the present case is whether the Government of West Bengal has shown
such lack of awareness of the problem of environment in making an H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A allotment of land for the construction of a Five Star Hotel at the
expense of the zoological garden that it warrants interference by this
Court? Obviously, if the Government is alive to the various considera-
tions requiring thought and deliberation and has arrived at a conscious
decision after taking them into account, it may not be for this Court to
interfere in the absence of mala fides. On the other hand, if relevant
B
considerations are not borne in mind and irrelevant considerations
influence the decision, the Court may interfere in order to prevent a
likelihood of prejudice to the public. Whenever a problem of ecology
is brought before the Court, the Court is bound to bear in mind Art.
48A of the Constitution, the Directive Principle which enjoins that
"The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment
c and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country," and Art.
5 !A(g) which proclaims it to be the fundamental duty of every citizen
of India "to protect and improve the natural environment including
forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living
creatures." When the Court is called upon to give effect to the Direc-
tive Principle and the fundamental duty, the Court is not to shrug its
D shoulders and say that priorities are a matter of policy and so it is a
matter for the policy-making authority. The least that the Court may
do is to examine whether appropriate consideration are borne in mind
and irrelevancies excluded. In appropriate cases, the Court may go
further, but how much further must depend on the circumstances of
the case. The Court may always give necessary directions. However
E
the Court will not attempt to nicely balance relevant considerations.
When the question involves the nice balancing of relevant conside-
rations, the Court may feel justified in resigning itself to acceptance of
the decision of the concerned authority. We may ~ow proceed to
examine the facts of the present case.
F
There is in Calcutta a zoological garden located in Alli pore, now
almost the heart of Calcutta, on either side of Belvedere Road, one of
Calcutta's main arterial roads, fortynine acres on one side and eight
acres on the other. The main zoo is in the fortynine acres block of land.
There are some old buildings and vacant land in the eight acre plot of
G land. This eight acre plot of land is known as the Begumbari land. It is
out of these eight acres that the land of the extent of four acres has
been carved out and given to the Taj Group of Hotels for the construc-
tion of a Five Star Hotel. It is this giving away of land, that was
challenged before the High Court and is now challenged in this Court
in this appeal by two citizens of Calcutta, one of them the Secretary of
H the Union of workmen of the zoological garden and the other a life
SACHIDANANDA PANDEYv. STATE OFW. BENGAL [REDDY,J.] 243

member of the zoo, both of whom claiming to be lovers of wild life and
A
1 well-wishers of the zoo.

In January 1979, the Director General of Tourism, Government
of India, addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary, Government of
West Bengal conveying the resolution of the Tourism Conference

,
('°.
which was presided over by the Union Minister of Tourism and
attended by several State Ministers and requesting that land in good
locations may be made available for construction of hotels in a drive to
encourage tourism. In May, 1980 the Taj Group of Hotels came for-
ward with a suggestion that they would be able to construct a Five Star
Hotel if any of three properties on Chowringhee, specified by them,
B

was made available to them. The Government found that there was
some litigation connected with the Chowringhee properties and, there-
c
fore, it would not be possible to convey the Chowringhee properties to
°f
the Taj Group of Hotels. On September 29, 1980 and November 29,
1980, there were two notes by the Secretary of the Metropolitan
Development Department to the effect that the l.T.D.C. was interes-
ted in a property known as the Hastings House Property and that the D
Taj Group of Hotels who considered the Hastings House property
unsuitable may be offered four acres out of the eight acres of
Begumbari land. On the same day the Taj Group of Hotels wrote to
the Government of West Bengal stating that the proposed land could
~ be seriously considerd for construction of a Hotel. Thereafter the
Chief Minsiter along with the Minister of Tourism and the Minister for E
Metropolitan Development visited the site accompanied by the
Director of the Zoo who apparently knew about the proposal right
from the start. A note was then prepared by the Secretary, Metropoli-
,,/,. tan Development Department and put up to the Chief Minister for his
approval. The note suggested that the Hastings House property may
be offered to the I.T.D.C. and the Begumbari property may be offered F
to the Taj Group and that at a later stage a suitable Committee might
be appointed to negotiate with the two groups of hotels. The Chief
Minister approved the proposal and required it to be placed before the
Cabinet. On January 7, 1981 a memorandum was prepared for the
consideration of the Cabinet explaining the need for more Five Star
Hotels in Calcutta and the benefits flowing out of the construction and G
establishment of such Five Star hotels. It was suggested that the Hast-
ings House Property may be leased to the I.T.D.C. Group and the
"" Begumbari property to the Taj Group of Hotels. In regard to the
Begumbari property, it was stated: "From the property of the Zoologi-
cal Gardens on the Belvedere Road it is possible to carve out about
four acres of land currently used for dumping garbage and also for H
.,
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A growing grass for the elephants. It will be necessary and in any case
advisable to shift the dumping ground, while adequate space can be
made available for growing grass elsewhere in the same area." It was
stated that the Finance and Tourism Department had agreed to the
proposal to lease the properties to the I.T.D.C. and the Taj Group
respectively. It was stated that though the Forest Department had
B suggested that Salt Lake was a better place for establishing a Five Star
Hotel, there was no demand for a Five Star Hotel in that area and the
request for a hotel in Salt Lake was confined to a Three Star Hotei.
Cabinet approval was sought for the offers to be made to the I.T.D.C.
and to the Taj Group and for the constituion of a suitable Committee
to undertake negotiations with the two groups.
c On .February 12, 1981, the Cabinet took a decision approving the
proposal contained in the last paragraph of the Cabinet Memorandum,
thus clearing the way for negotiations with the Taj Group.

Meanwhile, it appeared that the Public Undertakings Committee
D appointed by the West Bengal Legislative Assembly submitted a Fe-
port on February 14, 1981 about the zoo in which they stated.

"******Originally this zoo was on the outskirts of the City
but the City has grown in such a fashion that the zoo has
vertually become the City Centre and there is hardly any
E scope for its expansion. The zoo is situated on the left bank
of the Tolly's Nallla divided with two parts on either said of
the Alipore Road. The zoo proper is about 40 acres on the
Western side, while the eastern part comprises the Zoo
Hospital, audiovisual centre acquarium, Zoo store and
Staff quarters. The Committee was informed that now-a- , ...ir
F days migratory birds were coming less in number though
previously more foreign birds used to come here and in the
opinion of the Managing Committee, the mah reason for
this was due to air and sound pollution. Breeding poten-
tialities of animals and birds have been retarded due to
constant stress and strain on the animals and also due to
G atmospheric reasons. ******The Committee came to learn
that a big hotel was proposed to be constructed on the plot
of land where fodder for elephant are being grown to meet )
at least a portion of the elephants food. Moreover, the staff
quarters, hospitals for animals and the morgue are also
situated near the said plot of land. If the proposed hotel is
H set up, all the existing buildings, viz. hospital, morgue etc.
SACHIDANANDA PANDEYv. STATEOFW. BENGAL [REDDY,J.] 245

would have to be shifted to the main Gardens resulting in
A
f unhealthy atmosphere for the zoo animals and also ham-
pering the beauty of the zoo Gardens. This would also
create problems to the staff quarters and acquarium."

The Committee also referred to a proposal to establish a 'Subsidiary
Zoo' some slight distance from Calcutta City and the request said to B
have been made for the allotment of200 acres of land for that purpose.
' It was suggested that the Government may consider abandoning the
'f proposal to set up a hotel on the Eastern side of the Zoo.
{
' The Chief Town Planner also visited the site at the request of the
Secretary, Metropolitan Development Department. The inspection
was made in the presence of the Director of the zoo. The Chief Town c
.. Planner thought that two to 21/2 acres of land only might be made
available for the hotel. He expressed the apprehension that if four
acres of land were to be given for construction of a hotel, then the
entire hospital and the dumping ground would have to be removed and
the southern boundary of the hotel would come very close to the D
residential block.

On March 19, the Taj Group submitted a proposal to the
Government containirrg fairly detailed information about the tourism
industry and its needs, the situation in Calcutta, the realities of hotel
"" construction, the facts relating to what had been done in other cities, E
the benefits flowing out of the construction of hotels and their own
proposals for constructing a hotel in the four acres of land in Belve-
dere Road. Two alternative financial arrangements were suggested.
The first alternative was the pa)ment of annual rent on the basis of the
••t valuation of the land, the second alternative was based on the concept
' of nett sales, nett sales being defined as sales.after deducting all taxes
I and levies and service charges. The Metropolitan Development
F

Department expressed a preference for the second alternative and
suggested the constitution of a Committee. The Finance Department
also approved. The Taj Group was invited to send the financial projec-
tion on the basis of the second alternative. Correspondence went on.
On June 5, 1981, a Committee of Secretaries was formally constituted. G
~ In the meanwhile, WEBCON, a West Bengal Government Con-
sultancy Undertaking, was asked to examine the proposals and to
advise the Government. The WEBCON submitted its report on July
14, 1981 and on the request of the Committee of Secretaries a further
report was submitted on July 22, 1981. The report of WEBCON is a H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

'\ comprehensive report on various topics connected with the establish-
ment of a Five Star Hotel in Calcutta. Among other things the report
also suggested various financial alternatives and recommended the
second alternative based on nett sales as the best. It is to be mentioned
here that even by February 21, 1981 the proposal to lease out the
Begumhari land to the Taj Group of Hotels had become public know-
B ledge and newspapers carried reports on the same.

On June 9, 1981, the Secretary of the Animal Husbandary and
Veterinary Services Department complained to the Secretary of the
Metropolitan Development Department that they were not aware of :i,
the decision to lease the iBegambari land. The Secretary, Metropolitan
Development Department made an endorsement on the letter to the
C effect that the Minister for Animal Husbandry and Veterinary services
had himself visited the site. In fact, as we have seen, the matter had
been considered and approved by the Cabinet itself and all Depart-
ments must necessarily have been appraised of the proposal.

D While so, the Managing Committee of the Zoo, on June 11,
1981, passed a resolution expressing itself against the proposal to con-
struct a hotel on land belonging to the Zoo. The Resolution said,

"The proposal for soil testing of zoo land in the Begumbari
Compound for the purpose of construction of Five Star
E Hotel was dis oussed in the meeting. The Committee resol-
0

ved that construction of a multistories buildings in the near
vicinity of the zoo will be highly detrimental to the animals
of the Zoo, its ecological balance and adversely affect the
bird migration which is one of the greatest attractions of
the zoo. The area proposed to be taken for Hotel construc-
F tion is already used by the zoo for fodder cultivation, burial
ground for dead animals, animal hospital, operation
theatre, quarantine area, segregation wards, postmortem
room and nursery both for zoo animals and horticultural
section. These essential services cannot be accommodated
within the campus of the main zoo for risk of spreading of
G infection to other animals of the zoo. Procurement of green
fodder for the large number of harvivorous animals of the
zoo is already a serious problem for the zoo and any dis-
turbance to fodder cultivation will aggravate the situation.
The Calcutta Zoo has the smallest area in comparison to
other reputed Zoo. The Committee is of a opinion that no
H portion of Zoo land can be parted with for any other
SACHIDANANDA PANDEYv. STATE OFW. BENGAL [REDDY, J.l 247

purpose. This being the position soil testing will hardly be
A
of any avail as the zoo cannot spare the land. Shri Ashoka
Basu, M.L.A., Shri K.P. Banerjee and Shri A.K. Das ab-
stained from participation in the proceedings."

The Minister for Metropolitan Development submitted a note to the
Chief Minister on the resolution of the Managing Committee of the B
--J Zoo. He pointed out that even if four acres out of the eight acres of
Begumbari land was given to the Taj Group, there would still remain
sufficient land for accommodation of the facilities. He added that the
~ Managing Committee's resolution was not binding on the Government
and suggested that the Director of the Zoo might be asked to allow the
Taj Group to undertake soil testing etc. so that work may proceed
according to the time-schedule. The Chief Minister endorsed the
c
1 following.

"I agree. It is unfortunate that we have not been able to
accept the contentions of the Managing Committee. If
further facilities are necessary for the Zoo, the Govern- D
ment will provide them."

In June 25, 1981, the Managing Committee of the Zoo met again and
.... passed another Resolution by which they withdrew their earlier objec-
tions. The Resolution stated.
E
"In view of the letter issued to the Zoological Gardens,
Alipore and the Cabinet decision regarding the land of
Begurnbari Compound and in consideration of the assur-
~ ance conveyed through Shri Ashoka Bose, Chief Whip and
Member that the State Government will give to the Garden
adjacent lands and matching grants for the purposes of F
shifting of the Departments of the Zoo within the said com-
pound, the members do not press their objections as con-
tained in the resolution of the Managing Committee held
on 11.6.81.

This was passed by the majority of the members pFe- G
...(_ sent, the President Justice Shri R.K. Banerjee dissenting."

On June 29, 1981, the Director of the Zoo wrote to the Secretary
of the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Department stating
his objections to the Proposal to lease the land for construction of a
hotel. He stated, H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS- [1987] 2 S.C.R.

"It appears that a total of four acres of Begumbari land is
A proposed to be taken for hotel construction. It may be
mentioned that this four acres of land proposed to be taken
is the only area available there and it is presently covered
by structures of hospital buildings, Research Laboratory,
Operation Theatre, Segregation Wards, Quarantine areas,
B post-mortem room, burial ground for dead animals. In
addition there are flower nursery, dumping ground and
fodder cultivation area. It is not at all possible to carve out
from this four acres of land without disturbing these
structures and services nor it is true that adequate space
can be made available in this site for these esential services.
c It may also be stated in this connection that the Zoo
cannot be run for a single day without these essential
services, i.e. (i) burial ground for dead animals, a number
of which die of infectious and communicable diseases, (2)
quarantine area for keeping animals coming to the Zoo, at
D least for 15 days before being shifted to the Zoo proper, (3)
isolation wards away from Zoo Hospital and quarantine
area for treatment of animals suffering from infectious and
contagious dis,eases. (4) post-mortem room for carrying out
p.m. findings, (5) dumping ground for dumping huge
.i
garbages coming out of the Zoo daily, (6) fodder cultiva-
E tion area for growing fodder for the harbivorous animals
and (7) pathefogical laboratory for carrying pathological
tests of animals and birds.
_....
"As per clause II of the Alipore Zoological Garden
(Management) Rules, 1957, the disposal of properties and I
F funds are vested in the Managing Committee of he Garden.
The relevent clause of the rule reads as below:

"The Managing Committee shall have custody and
disposal of the property and funds of the Gardens and shall
be responsible for proper maintenance."
G ').
Presnmably as a consequence of the letter from the Director of
the Zoo there was a note by the Secretary, Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Services Department suggesting the postponement of the
implementation of the Cabinet decision till the necessary facilities then
available at Begumbari land were shifted to other land of the same
H extent within a reasonable distance from the Zoological Garden, as
SACHIDANANDA PANDEYv. STATE OFW. BENGAL (REDDY, J.] 249

these facilities were originally linked with the Zoo. He pointed out A
that the Metropolitan Development Department had not consulted the
Animal Husbandry Department before the Cabinet note was prepared
and circulated. So the practical problems of the Zoo did not receive
detailed. consideration earlier. The note also pointed out that
immediate transfer of the four acre plot of land would mean discon-
tinuance of existing hospital facilities, research laboratory, operation B
theatre, segregation wards, quarantine facilities etc. A reference was
also made to the report of Public Undertakings Committee.

Meanwhile negotiations with Taj Group proceeded apace. The
WEBCON submitted further reports. Taj Group suggested further
modifications, On September 9, 1981 a detailed memorandum was C
prepared for cabinet discussion. Two alternative financial proposals
were set out. A reference was made to the Committee of Secretaries
who negotiated with the Taj Group of Hotels. Ncte was taken of the
suggestion of the Negotiation Committee that the overall development
plan for the environmental beautification, widening of approach
roads, landscaping of Tolley's Nullah were responsibilities of the State D
Government and estimated to cost Rs. 2 crores but that it was ex-
pected to be of considerable public benefit. Stress was laid on the
direct and indirect economic activities which would be generated by
the establishment of a Five Star Hotel. Reference was also made to the
report of WEBCON and it was noted that the projected profitability of
the ventur to the Government was expected to be high. It was also E
mentioned that the Ministers, Incharge of Tourism, Animal Husban-
dry, Land Revenue and Finance had seen the note and agreed to it. On
September 10, 1981 the Cabinet took the final decision to grant a
ninety-nine years lease of the Four acres of Begumbari land to the Taj
Group of Hotels. On September 28, 1981 the Government of West
Bengal officially conveyed its acceptance of the proposal of the Taj F
Group of Hotels for the construction of a Five Star Hotel. The terms
and conditions of the lease were set out. On January 7, 1982, there was
a joint meeting of the Establishment and Finance sub-committees of
the Zoo and it was decided to recommend to the Committee of
management that the demarcated area of four acres may be relin-
quished in favour of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services G
Department subject to the requirement that the Zoo will continue to
get the services and facilities in the existing structures until they were
reconstructed on the adjacent land. On January 11, 1982 the Managing
Committee endorsed the view of the sub-committees and this was
communicated to the Government. On January 15, 1982, the Govem-
ment of West Bengal wrote to the Land Acquisition Officer, with H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A copies to the Taj Group of Hotels, directing the Land Acquisition
Officer to give possession of the land to the Taj Group of Hotels
subject to their later executing & proper long term lease. It was
mentioned in the letter that the construction of the hotel should not be
started till the lease deed was executed and registered. It was further
expressly stipulated as follows:-
B
''The Alipur Zoological Garden will continue to get the
services and facilities from the existing essential structures
which fall within the demarcated in the annexed sketch
map till such time when these essential structures i.e. hospi-
tal and operation theratre are reconstructed on the adja-
c cent land occupied by the Zoological Garden. A copy of
the sketch map is enclosed for ready.reference. The India
Hotels Co. Ltd. will find out in consultation with and with
the concurrence of the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary
Services Department of this Government and the authori-
ties of the Alipore Zoological Garden the period of time
D
required for reconstruction of the essential structures
standing on the land proposed .to be leased out to the said
company. It will also let this department have in consulta-
tion with and with the concurrence of the Animal Husban-
dry and Veterinary Services Department of this Govern-
ment and the Alipore Zoological Garden a plan and e&ti-
E
mate for reconstruction of the aforesaid essential structures
on the land adjacent to the land proposed to be leased out,
so that all these points are incorporated in the deed of lease
between the said company and the State Government in
this Department for the said land measuring four acres.
F
"As agreed by the said company during the vari-
ous meetings its representatives had with various depart-
ments of this Government, the company will either place
the necessary fund in the hands of Animal Husbandry and
Veterinary Services Department or the Zoo Garden autho-
G rities as the case may be, for reconstruction of the aforesaid
essential structures or reconstruction the aforesaid
essential structures under its own supervision to the satis-
faction of the the Zoo Garden authorities or Animal
Husbandry annd Veterinary Services Department as the
case may be, such funds will in either case be advanced or
H deemed to be advanced by the Company without interest to
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STATE OF W. BENGAL [REDDY, J .J 251

be adjusted against dues of the State Government in ac-
"'t' cordance with the terms and conditions of the lease."
A

It is to be noted here that though the stipulation was that the cost
of new construction was to be initially met by Taj Group of Hotels and
later to be adjusted against the rent payable by Taj Group, the Taj
Group later agreed to waive such reimbursement. We are told that a B
I total sum of Rs. 30 lakhs has now been spent by Taj Group of Hotels in
'1 connection with the reconstruction. We are also told that an extent of

-- '#
288 square meters out of the plot given to the Taj Group was carved
out and given back for accommodating part of the reconstructed
structures. Pursuant to the letter dated January 15, 1982 possession
was given to Taj Group on January 16, 1982. Thereafter an expert
c
Committee was constituted to supervise the construction of alternative
1 facilities. At that stage the writ petition out of which the present
appeal arises was filed on February 26, 1982. Initially the relief sought
was primarily to restrain the Zoo authorities from giving effect to the
two resolutions dated January 7, 1982 and January 11, 1982 to hand
over the four acres to the Animal Husbandry Department of the D
Government. Subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, a lease
deed was executed by the Taj Group of Hotels in favour of the
Government. The writ petition was therefore, amended and a prayer
for cancellation of the lease deed was added. First a learned Single
Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. On appeal, a Division Bench of the

- High Court confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The
original petitioners are now before us having obtained special leave
under Art. 136 of the Constitution.
E

--)_.
I
Before adverting to the submission of the learned counsel, it is
necessary, at this juncture, to refer to certain correspondence. On
\
\ April 23, 1982, Late Smt. Indira Gandhi, Prime Minister of India F
wrote to Shri Jyothi Basu, Chief Minister of West Bengal expressing
the hope that he would not allow the Calcutta Zoo to suffer in any
manner and would leave in intact. She drew the Chief Minister's atten-
tion to the fact that 'apart from' reduct10n in the already inadecuate
space for the Zoological Garden construction of a Five Star Multys-
toreyed Building would disturb the inmates and adversely affect birds G
migration which was a great attraction.' She also mentioned that the
expert Committeee of the Indian Board for Wild Life also unanim-
ously disapprove the idea. She queried whether the Hotel could not be
located elsewhere. For one reason or the other the Prime Minister's
letter did not reach the Chief Minister for a considerable time. On
August 21, 1982 the Chief Minister sent his reply pointing out that the H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A four acres of land were agreed to be relinquished by the Committee of \-
management of the Zoological Garden on condition that alternate
arrangements were . made for shifting the existing structures which
were necessary for the Zoo from the plot in question to the adjacent
plot. The Chief Minister also mentioned that there appeared to be
some misconception that the plot in question was a part of the Zoo
B Garden. It was not so. It was outside the Zoological Garden and
separated from it by a 80-100 feet road. The Chief Minister assured the
Prime Minister that the existing structures would be relocated on the
adjacent land and until that was done the Zoo would continue to get
their services and facilities from the existing structures. The Chief
Minister further drew the attention of the P{ime Minister to the fact
that the hotel was likely to be a six storeyed one and would not be the
c only tall building near the Zoo. There were already a large number of
high-rise residential buildings around the Zoo. No one had raised any
objection when those building were constituted. Another multis-
toreyed building which was going to be the largest in the locality was
under construction near the Zoo for the Post and Telegraph Depart-
D ment. There was no report that the existing multistoreyed buildings
had any adverse affect on the migratory birds or the animals. The
Chief Minister also pointed out that the lessee and their experts on
wild life has assured them that in any case adequate precaution would
be taken in regard to illumination of the hotel and the layout of the
surrendings so that no disturbance would be caused to the flight path of
E the birds or animals. On August 30, 1982, Shri J.R.D. Tata wrote to
the Prime Minister pointing out that their Hotel management had
discussed the matter at length with representatives of the Wild Life
fund who were satisfied that the proposed hotel would cause no dis-
turbance to the birds. He had again gone thoroughly into the project
with special reference to its possible impact on the hds or environ-
F ment and had also visited Calcutta in that connection. He was satisfied
that the project could not possibly disturb birds using the lake or
interfere with their free movement. He gave his reasons as follows:

"The four-acre plot assigned to the Hotel Company by the
State Government is not within the boundaries of the area
G belonging to the Zoological Gardens but on the other side
of Belvedere Road, an important thoroughfare parallel to
the main boundary of the zoo and some 700 feet from the
main part of the lake. It forms part of an area belonging to
the State Government which the Zoo authorities have upto
now been allowed to use to look after sick animals of the
H Zoo and as labour quarters. It contains five small structures
SACHIDANANDA PANDEYv. STATEOFW. BENGAL [REDDY, J.] 253

including a cage and a small veterinary laboratory or dis- A
pensary. The whole area is in sheckingly unkept condition,
most of it covered by a single or spear grass and other wild
growth.

"The hotel is planned to be built away from the front·
age of that plot of Belvadere Road and to be low rise B
structure, the Highest point of which will not exceed 75
feet.

"Dr. B. Biswas, a renowned ormithologist, who re-
cently retired as Professor Emeritus of the Zoological
Survey of India, whom the Taj Management consulted,
confirmed that a 75-feet high building on the location C
would not worry birds landing on the lake or climbing out
of it. In fact, as the grounds of the zoo between the lake
and Belvedre Road are covered with high trees, the climb-
ing or descent angle which the birds have to negotiate to
get over the trees is already steeper that it will be between D
the lake and the proposed hotel.

"As regards the objection that arise from the hotel
itself from vehicular traffic to and from the hotel would
disturb the birds, the hotel will be totally aircooditioned so

- that no noise will emanate frrom it, while noise from the E
heavy traffic on Belvedere Road does not seem to have
bothered the birds upto now. The occasional additional
cars plying into and out of the hotel could therefore hardly
trouble birds resting on the lake some 250 yards away.

"Regarding the fear that lights emanating from the F
hotel or illuminate of signs of the hotel would disorient the
birds and possibly cause them to hit the building the Mana-
gement of the Hotel Company has taken a firm decision
that there will be no bright lights or noon signs emanating
from the hotel."
G
Shri Tata further suggested that if necessary the Prime Minister could
appoint a small advisory Committee consisting of Shri Pushpa Kumar,
Director of the Hyderabad Zoo considered to be the finest zoo in India
and one of the best in Asia, Dr. Biswas. Mrs. Anne Wright and the
Chairman of the Managing Commitee of the Zoological Garden to
advise on the snbject. On September 1, 1982, Smt. Indira Gandhi H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A wrote to Mr. Tata expres:;ing her happiness that the Hotel was not
going to upset the Zoo animals and welcoming his offer to help the
State Government to improve the Zoo's facilities.

Dr. L.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellants·.made the
following submission before us; The Begumbari land was statutorily
B vested in the Managing Committee of the Zoological Garden and that
the Committee could not be divested by an executive decision without
proper procedure being followed. The land could not be leased to the
Taj Group of Hotels without inviting tenders from willing persons and
without complying with the requirements of paragraphs 166 and 167 of
the Land Manual. In taking a decision to take away the land from the
Zoo and to lease the same to the Taj Group of Hotels, relevant consi-
C derations had been ignored and irrelevant considerations had been
taken into account. The decision was taken without considering the
impact on the Zoo and without consulting various interested autho-
rities and institutions. Several authorities and institutions like the
Director of the Zoo, the Managing Committee of the Zoo, the Public
D Undertakings Committee of West Bengal, the Indian Wild Life Board,
leading ornithologists of the country, etc. had disapproved the taking
away of the land from the Zoo and leasing it to the Taj Group of
Hotels. These persons and institutions had made several points, none
of which had been taken into account by the Government before it
took the decision to lease the land. The attention of the government
E was not focussed on these questions as evident from the fact that the Cabi-
net Memorandum hardly refers to any of the objections. The decision of
the Government was also wrong as it was apparently based on some
assumptions which had been made without inquiry and verification.
The Chief Minister appeared to be under the impression that Dr.
Biswas and others were not opposed to the proposal. That was not
F correct. The construction of a Five-Star Hotel was too heavy a cost to
pay for the environmental detriment caused by it. The terms on which
the lease had been granted were deterimental to the public revenue.

Shri Dipankar Gupta, learned counsel for the Taj Group of
Hotels and Shri Gooptu learned counsel for the State of West Bengal
G argued that the former facilities available in the four-arce plot of land
were not displaced but were replaced and preserved by better facilities
in the adjacent plot of land. This was not to the disadvantage, but to
the advantage of the Zoo and its inmates. If the dumping ground and
the burial ground had to be moved elsewhere, it was certainly more
hygienic and a matter for gratification rather than for disgruntlement.
H Nor was there any obstruction to the flight of the visiting birds as the
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STA TE OF W. BENGAL [REDDY, J .) 255

hotel was to be constructed at a distance of 700 feet from the lake and
-I was to rise to a maximum height of 75 feet, being a medium rise and
not a high rise building. On the other hand there was going to be an
A

environmental improvement of the area as the dumping ground, burial
ground and the semi-dilapidated buildings were to be replaced by a
hotel ssurrounded by broad roads and a very large number of trees
proposed to be planted by the hotel management. The landscaping was B
also designed to improve the ecology and not to diminish it. There was
no occassion for the Government to invite tenders since the establish-
ment of a Five-Star hotel was not something which could practicably be
undertaken by anyone in that fashion. It could only be done by nego-
tiation between the persons coming forward with proposals to
establish Five Star Hotels. The terms of the lease were not to the C
financial disadvantage of the Government. The matter had been con-
sidered at great length by the Committees of Secretaries appointed by
f the Government as well as by WEBCON and they had recommended
the acceptance the nett sales arrangement in preference to the arrange-
ment of rent based on land-cost.
D
We are unable to agree with the submission of Dr. Singhvi,
learned counsel for the appellants, that the Government of West
Bengal decided to grant the lease of the Begumhari land to the Taj
Group of Hotels without applying their mind to very important rele-
vant considerations. Much of the argument on this question was based
on the assumption that the decision to lease the Begumbari land to the E
Taj Group of Hotels was taken on February 12, 1981. The decision
taken by the Cabinet on February 12, 1981 was merely to enter into
negotiations with the I.T.D.C. and the Taj Group of Hotels in regard
to leasing the Hastings House property and the Begumbari land.
Negotiations with the I.T.D.C. did not fructify while negotiations with
the Taj Group of Hotels fruitioned. It was on September 10, 1981 that F
the Cabinet finally took the decision to lease the Begumbari land to
the Taj Group. If there was any decision on February 12, 1981 in
regard to leasing the Begumbari land it could at best to characterised
as purely tentative and it could not by any stretch of imagination be
called an irrevocable or irreversible decision in the sense that the
Government was powerless to revoke it or that it had created any rights G
in anyone so as to entitle that person to question any reversal of tbe
tentative decision. It was not a decision, if it was one, on which any
right could be hung. At that stage, the Government of West Bengal
appeared to have been on the search for two suitable plots of land
which could be offered, one to the I.T.D.C. and the other to the Taj
Group of Hotels for the construction of Five-Star Hotels. The record H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A shows that these two chain-hoteliers wer the only hoteliers-and, they
certainly were leading botchers of the country-who had come for-
ward to negotiate with the West Bengal Government regarding the
constuction of Five-Star Hotels. The city of Calcutta was noticeably
lacking in the 'Five-Star Hotel amenity' to attract tourist, local and
foreign, and the Government of West Bengal was anxious to do its
B best to promote the tourist industry which it was hoped' would pr-0-
vided direct and indirect employment, earn foreign exchange and con-
fer other economic benefits to the people of the State. It is immaterial
whether the move come first from the Government or from the Taj
Group. The Government was anxious that more Five-Star Hotels
should be established at Calcutta and the Taj Group was willing to
-"( --
c establish one. They wanted a suitable plot for its construction. It was
the suggestion for the All India Tourism Conference presided over by
the Union Minister for Tourism that State Government should make
plots in good locations available at concessional rates for construction
of hotels in order to promote the Tourist Industry. It was in pursuance
of this general all-India policy and, in particular, to fulfill the felt-
D needs of Calcutta that the Government of West Bengal was looking
out for a suitable plot in a good location. They were clearly not doing
so at the behest of the Taj Group of Hotels. It does not require much
imagination to say that location is among the most important factors to
be considered when constructing a Five-Star Hotel, particularly if it is
to promote tourism. Obviously, one place is not as good as another
E and the place has to be carefully chosen. After excluding Salt Lake and
after considering some properties in Chowringhee, the Government
felt that two properties, the Hastings House property and the
Begumbari property could be thought of as meeting the requirements.
Since the Hastings House property, was not found acceptable by the
Taj Group, it was decided to negotiate with them in regard to -¥
F construction of a Five-Star Hotel on the Begumbari land. We find it j
difficult to treat this decision to negotiate with the Taj Group in regard
to construction of a Five-Star Hotel on the Begumbari land as a final
decision to part with the land. The prominent use to which the land
was evidently put at the time was as a dumping ground for refuse and
rubbish and for growing fodder for elephants. This was noticed and
G mentioned in the note prepared for the consideration of the Cabinet
and it was suggested that separate provision would have to be made for
them. Therefore, it is clear that it was not forgotten that if the land was
to be allotted to the Taj Group, separate provision would have to be
made for whatever use the land was being put to them. The Govem-
ment was not unmindful of the interests and requirements of the
H Zoological Garden though at that stage no detailed investig.ations had
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STATE OF W. BENGAL (REDDY, J .1 257

apparently been made. The decision of the Government was not one
A
~
4
of those mysterious decisions taken in the shrouded secrecy of Ministe-
rial Chambers. It appears to have been taken openly with no attempt
at secrecy. The decision, perhaps proposal would be a more apprn-
priate word, was known to the Public Undertakings Committee in less
then two days. They expressly refer to it in their report dated February
14, 1981 made two days after the Cabinet decision. By Twenty-first B
February it was public knowledge and news of the proposal was
·~ published in the daily newspapers. We have no evidence or any irn-
mediate or subsequent public protest but there were certain objections

-1· from some circles. Earlier we have extracted the report of Public
Undertakings Committee. The substance of the objection of the Public
Undertakings Committee was that the facilities available in the
Begumbari land would be left unprovided for if the land was given to
c
the proposed hotel. The available facilities were mentioned as Staff
f quarters, hospital for animals, burial ground for animals, fodder for
elephants etc. It was also said that if the hospital and the burial ground
were to be shifted to the main garden it would result in an unhealthy
atmosphere for the animals and the zoo and would detract from the D
beauty of the Zoo Garden. The assumption of the Public Undertakings
Committee that the hospital and the burial ground were to be shifted
to the main garden was baseless, since, there was never any such
proposal. A modern zoo hospital for animals has been constructed in
.,..\
the remaining extent of Begumbari land replacing the old hospital
which was housed in a semi-dilapidated building. Surely, there should E

- be no complaint about it. It has also been proposed to shift the burial
ground elsewhere. That would be most desirable from any point of
view. Fodder for elephants should not again be considered to be prob-
!em. It would be stretching credibility to suggest that it is necessary to
--.\-· grow fodder in the Begumbari land to feed the elephants in the zoo.
\ Fodder may be bought and brought from elsewhere. The Chief Town F
I Planner who was deputed to visit the site at the request of the SecFe-
tary, Metropolitan Development Department and who visited the Zoo
accompanied by the Director of the Zoo reported that 2 to 21;, acres of
land might be made available for the hotel. If four acres of land were
given, he expressed the apprehension that the hospital and the dump-
ing ground would have to be moved elsewhere. The hospital as we G
have already mentioned has since been conveniently and comfortably
~ accommdated in a new building and the proposal is to move the dump-
ing ground elsewhere. The Managing Committee of the Zoo also ini-
tially expressed its opposition to the proposal to construction hotel on
land belonging to the Zoo. The Committee's objections were two-fold:
(1) A muliti-storied building in the vicinity of the Zoo will disturb the H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A animals and the ecological balance and will affect the bird migration
(2) the land was already used for various purposes, that is, fodder
cultivation, burial ground for animals, hospital, operation theatre,
quarantine area, post-martom room and nursery. It would be impossi-
ble, according to the Committee to accommodate these essential
services within the campus of the main Zoo .. The objections of the
B Managing Com!llittee were first brought to the notice of the Minister
for Metropolitan Development who submitted a note to the Chief
Minister pointing out that even if four acres of land out of the eight

-
acres of Begumbari land was given to the Taj Group, there would still
remain sufficient land for accommodating the existing facilities. The
Chief Minister considered the objections and noted that if further
c facilities were necessary for the Zoo, Government would provide
them. Thereafter the Managing Committee reversed its earlier stand
and agreed to the proposal on the assurance that adjacent land and
matching grants would be given to the Zoo. We have earlier referred
to the letter of the Director of the Zoo dated June 29, 1981 addressed
to the s·ecretary, Animal Husbandary Department where he expressed
D his opposition to the proposal on the ground that the Zoo could not be
run for a single day without the essential services which were being
provided in the four acres of land proposed to be given for the hotel.
This again, we notice, is based on the assumption that there was going
to be no provision for those facilities once the hotel was constructed.
We have already pointed out that this assumption is wholly incorrect.
E The letter of the Director of the Zoo was followed by a note by the
Secretary of the Animal Husbandry Department suggesting that the
practical problems of the Zoo should receive detailed consideration
and that the immediate transfer of the land to the hotel would mean
discontinuance of the existing facilities. In the face of all this material,
we do not see how it can be seriously contended that the interests and -+"I
F the requirements of the Zoo were totally ignored and not kept in mind
when the decision was taken to lease the land to the Taj Group of
I
Hotels. The Chief Minister's attention was expressly drawn to the
Managing Committee's first Resolution expressing its opposition to
the proposal to give the land for the construction of a hotel and detail-
ing the objections and the Chief Minister had expressly noted that all
G facilities necessary for the Zoo would be provided by the Government.
The assurance was also conveyed to theManaging Committee through
the amissaries of the Chief Minister. There were inter-departmental
notings which we presume must also have been brought to the notice
of the Chief Minister. We find it impossible to agree with the stricture
that the Chief Minister turned a blind eye and a deat ear to the
H interests and the requirements of the Zoo and went about the question
SACHIDANANDAPANDEYv. STATEOFW. BENGAL [REDDY,J.] 259

of allotment of land to the Taj Group of Hotels determined to give the A
land to them and with a mind closed to everything else. We cannot do
so in the face of the assurance of the Chief Minister that facilities
would be provided for the Zoo and if, as the saying goes, the proof of
the pudding is in the eating, the Chief Minister's assurances are found
reflected in the lease executed by the Taj Group of Hotels in favour of
the Government of West Bengal. In Clause 25 of the lease dead, it is B
expresssly stipulated that the lessee shall reconstruct the structures
now existing on the demised land (as found in the sketch accompany·
ing the deed) on the adjacent plot of land and that the plan, design, lay
out, estimates, etc. of the proposed new structures should be supplied
by the Alipur Zoological Garden to the lessee. The reconstructed
structures were required to be equal be the existing ones in floor area, C
but it was open to them to increase the floor area by agreement. The
amount expended by the lessee towards the reconstruction of the
structures was to be adjusted without interest against the dues of the
lessee to the Government. The Alipore Zoological Garden authorities
were required to vacate the existir.g structure within a period of six
months which was also the period stipulated for raising the new con- D
structions. We may add here that the Taj Group of Hotels have spent a
sum of Rs. 30 lakhs towards the cost of the new constructions, but that
they have waived their right to claim reimbursement from the Govern-
ment. An affidavit to that effect was also filed before the trial court.
Thus we see that the contention of the appellants that the Government
of West Bengal had no thought to spare for the facilities which were till E
then being provided in the Begumbari land is unsustainable. The
learned counsel for the appellants urged that the second Cabinet
Memorandum dated September 9, 1981 on which date the Govern-
~· ment took the final decision to grant the lease made no mention of the
needs and interests of the Zoo or the facilities provided in the
\ Begumbari land for the Zoo. It is true that there is no reference to
these matters in the second Cabinet Memorandum. But that is for the
F

obvious reason that the matter had already been the subject matter of
inter-department discussion and communication. The Managing
Committee of the Zoo which had initially opposed the proposal had
also come round and had agreed to the proposal. It was, therefore,
thought that there was no need to mention the needs and interests of G
the Zoo which were already well known and had also received
consideration.

It was suggested that the Zoo itself required to be expended and
there was, therefore, no land which could be spared. The land allotted
to the hotel was, as we have seen, not used for the main purpose of the H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

zoo and was not in fact part of the main Zoological Garden. The
A
Government had already in mind a proposal to start a subsidiary Zoo y·
in an extent of about 200 acres of land in the outskirts of Calcutta. This '
has been mentioned in the various notings made from time to time. We
have no doubt that the Government was quite alive to the need for
expansion of the zoo when they decided to grant four acres of
B Begumbari land which was not used for the main purpose of the zoo
for the construction of a Five-Star hotel.

The next question is whether the Government was alive to the
'r
ecological considerations, particularly to the question of the migratory
birds when they took the decision of lease the land to the Taj Group of x-
c Hotels. Again sustenance to the argument of the learned counsel for
the appellants is sought to be drawn from the circumstance that neither
of the two Cabinet Memoranda dated January 7, 1981 and September
9, 1981 referred to the migratory birds. It is wrong to think that every- \
thing that is not mentioned in the Cabinet Memoranda did not receive
consideration by the Government. We must remember that the pr-o-
D cess of choosing and alloting the land to the Taj Group of Hotels took
merely two years, during the course of which objections of various
kinds were raised from time to time. It was not necessary that every
one of these objections should have been mentioned and considered in
each of the Cabinet Memoranda. The question of the migratory birds
was first raised in the resolution of the. Managing Committee dated >-.
E June 11, 1981. This resolution was forwarded to the Chief Minister and
conside~ed by his as evident from the note of the Chief Minister and
the suiequent reversal of the Managing Committee's resolution at the
instance of the Chief Minster and on his assurances. The Chief Minis-
-
ter was certainly .aware of the question of the migratory birds before it __.......
was finally decided to allot the Begumbari land to the Taj Group of '
F Hotels. That the Government was aware of the dissension based on i
the alleged obstruction likely to be caused by a mulit-storeyed building (
to the flight of the migratory birds appears from the letter of the Chief
Minister to the Prime Minister. In this letter, the Chief Minister
pointed out that there were already in existence a number of muki-
storeyed buildings all around the Zoological Garden, but there was no
G report that they had any adverse effect on the migratory birds or the
animals. He also pointed out that all precautions would be taken in the ).....--"-
matter of illumination of the hotel and lay out of 1he surroundings so
that no disturbance would be caused to the flight path of the birds or
-
aniamls. Shri J.R.D. Tata, on behalf of the Taj Group of Hotels, also
wrote to the Prime Minister assuring her that the hotel management
H had discussed the matter at length with a representatives of the Wild
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STATE OF W. BENGAL (REDDY, J.] 261

Life Fund who, after discussion, had been satisfied that the proposed
A
hotel would cause no disturbance to the birds. He further assured her
'(
that he had himself gone thoroughly into the project with special refer-
ence to the possible impace on the birds and the environment and had
satisfied himself that project would not caused any disturbance to the
birds or their free movement. The reasons given by him have already
been extracted earlier by us from his letter. He pointed out that the B
four-acre plot was not within the main Zoological Garden, but was
--1 separated from it by the Belvedere Road which was an important
thoroughfare in the city. It was about 700 feet from the main part of
the lake. The hotel was porposed to be built away from the frontage of
-i the plot in Belvedere Road and was to be a low-rise structure, the
highest point of which would not exceed 75 feet. This was mentioned
apparently to indicate that the building would not come within the
c
trajectory of the birds. He mentioned that Dr. Biswas, a renowned
-t ornithologist had also been consulted by the Taj Management and he
had also confirmed that a 75 feet building would not interfere with the
landing or climbing out of the birds from the lake. He further
mentioned that the grounds of the Zoo between the lake and the D
Belvedere Road were covered with tall trees and that the birds
negotiating the trees would have to fly at the steeper angle than it
would be necessary to negotiate the proposed hotel. The vehicular
traffic on Belvedere Road which was also heavy did not bother the
-~ birds and the slight increase of the vc;h_icular traffic consequent on the

-
~-
construction of the hotel was also not likely to bother them either. It
was also pointed out that particular care would be taken in the matter
of illumination of the hotel so that bright lights or neor signs emanat-
ing from the hotel would not disturb the birds and animals.
E

I The learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to a
letter written by Dr. Biswas to the Statesman dated August 3, 1982 in F
I which he disowned having made any statement to a press correspon-
'
dent by name, Bachi J Karkaria that the hotel posed no threat at all to
the migratory flight path. He explained that what he meant to say was
that migratory birds visiting the Zoo lake choose places to the east and
south-east of the lake for nocturnal feeding and that their flight to the
nocturnal feeding grounds in the marshes would be affected, if the G
proposed hotel was a high-rise building. Apart from the fact that he
~ did not mention what he had in mind when he spoke of a high-rise
building, the point made by Shri J.R.D. Tata in his letter to the Prime
Minister that birds flying in or flying out had to fly at a very steep angle
while negotiating the tall trees between the lake and Belvedere Road,
an angle much steeper than the angle at which they would have to fly H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A to negotate a 75 feet tall building, such as, the proposed hotel, remains
unanswered. Be it noted that Belvedere Road is to the east of the lake.
We may also note here a point made by Dr. Biswas in his letter to the
Statesman that there were possible health hazards in the re-location of
the Zoo hospital, quarantine area and post-mortem room in the area
adjacent to the staff quarters. He is no expert on the subject of public
B health and no one has complained that there would be any hazard to
the health of those living in the staff quarters by the re-location of the
hospital, etc. We are satisfied that the question of obstruction which
may be caused to migratory birds did not go unnoticed by the Govern-
ment before the decil;ion to lease the land was taken and we are also
satisfied that the building of the proposed hotel is not likely to cause
any obstruction to the flight path of the migratory birds.
c
We may refer here to the resolution of the Wild Life Board to
which a reference was made by the Prime Minister in her letter to the
Chief Minister. Our attention was drawn by the learned counsel for
appellants to the presence of two renowned experts at the meeting of
D the Wild Life Fund on September 25, 1981. They were Shri Pushp
Kumar, Director of the Hyderabad Zoo and Mrs. Anne Wright. The
subject which was discussed by the Expert Committee on September
25, 1981 was "Construction of a Five-Star Hotel within the premises of
Ali pore Zoo in Calcutta." The proceedings of the Committee were
recorded as follows:
E
"Director, Geological Survey of India explained the whole
matter and pointed out the utter impropriety of the deci-
sion of the Government of West Bengal to construct a Five-
-
Star Hotel within the premises of Alipore Zoo in Calcutta.
The Committee agreed fully with this view and desired that
F this matter should be taken up immediately by the Central
Government with the State Government."

This record of the proceedings shows that the Experts Committee of
the Wild Life Fund was proceeding on the fundamental wrong assump-
tion that the hotel was proposed to be constructed "within the premises
G of Alipore Zoo". The resolution was justified on the assumed pre-
mises but unfortunately it was founded on a wrong premises. Later
Mrs. Anne Wright appeared to lie satisfied with what was finally done
as evident from her letter dated November 19, 1983 to Mr. J.R.D.
Tata, a copy of which has been placed before us.

H Bearing in mind the proper approach that we have to make when
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STA TE OF W. BENGAL [REDDY, J .] 263

~'(
. questions of ecology and environment are raised, an approach which
we have mentioned at the outset, we are satisfied that the facts and A
circumstances brought out by the appellants do not justify an inference
that the construction of the proposed hotel in the Begumbari land
would interfere in any manner with the animals in the Zoo and the
birds arriving at the Zoo or otherwise disturb the ecology: The pm-
posed hotel is a Garden-hotel and there is perhaps every chance of the B
'4 ecology and environment improving as a result of planting numerous trees
all around the proposed hotel and the removal of the burial ground
and dumping ground for rubbish.
-' f
Dr. Singhvi cited before us the well known decisions of this
Court in Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D. Agarwal, (1969] SCR 108;
Barium Chemicals v. A.G. Rana, (1972] 2 SCR 752 and Mohinder c
't Singh Gill v. Central Election Commission, [1978] 2 SCR 273 to urge
that even an administrative decision must be arrived at after taking into
account all relevant considerations and eschewing irrelevant consi-
derations and that the reasons for an order must find a place in the
order itself and those reasons cannot be supplemented later by fresh D
reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. The submission was
that neither the Cabinet memorandum of January 7, 1981 nor the
Cabinet Memorandum of September 9, 1981 revealed that relevant
. .-{
considerations had been taken into account. What was not said in
either of the Cabinet Memoranda, it was said, could not later be sup-
plemented by considerations which were never present to the mind of E
the decision making authority. We do not agree with the submission of
Dr. Singhvi. The proposition that a decision must be arrived at after
taking into account all relevant c.onsiderations, eschewing all irrelev-
'l- ant considerations cannot for a moment be doubted. We have already
pointed out that relevant considerations were not ignored and, indeed,
were taken into account by the Government of West Bengal. It is not F
one of those cases where the evidence is first gathered and a decision is
later arrived at one fine morning and the decision is incorporated in a
reasoned order. This is a case where discussions have necessarily to
stretch over a long period of time. Several factors have to be indepen-
dently and separately weighed and considered. This is a case where the
decision and the reasons for the decisions can only be gathered by G
-1 looking at the entire course of events and circumstances stretching
over the period from the initiation of the proposal to the taking of the
final decision. It is important to note that unlike Mohinder Singh Gill's
case where that Court was dealing with a Statutory Order made by a
statutory functionary who could not therefore, be allowed to supple-
ment the grounds of this order by later explanations, the present is a H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

case where neither a statutory functions nor a statutory functionary is
A
involved but the transaction bears a commercial though public charac-
ter which can only be settled after protracted discussion, clarification
and consultation with all interested persons. The principle of Mohin-
der Singh Gill's case has no application to the factual situation here.

B It was said that the principles of Natural Justice had not been
observed and that those who are most interested in the Zoological
Garden were not heard in the matter before the decision was taken.
We do not think that anyone can have a justifiable grievance on this
score. The proposal to lease the Begumbari land was public knowledge
as we have seen. Such as those as were really interested in the matter
like the Managing· Committee of the Zoological Garden and the
c Director of the Zoo did have their say in the matter. The Public
Undertakings Committee in its report discussed the matter and invited
the Government's attention to various factors. The matter was further
discussed on the floor of the Legislative Assembly. It is impossible to
agree with the submission that there was any failure to observe princi-
D pies of Natural Justice.

One of the submissions of Dr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the
appellants, was that the Bengal Public Parks Act, 1904 vested the
Begumbari land in the Managing Committee of the Zoological Garden
and that what had become statutorily vested in the Committee could
E not be divested by an executive fiat. We agree that an Act of the
Legislature cannot be undone by a mere act of the executive. But what
is the position here? Did the Act deal with the land at all? The
Begumbari land was given to the Zoological Garden by the Govern-
ment in 1880. We do not have the original grant before us. The entire
file of the Government relating to the Begumbari land was produced
F before the Trial Court without any attempt at withholding any docu-
ment. The records were before the High Court and there are now
before us two copies of a letter written on July 7, 1880 by the Assistant
Secretary to the Government of Bengal in the Public Works Depart-
ment to Mr. L. Schwandler, Honorary Secretary, Zoological Garden
conveying to him the sanction of the Lt. Governor for the transfer of
G the land to the east of Belvedere Road, known as Begumbari land to
the charge of the Committee of the Zoological Garden on the terms
agreed to by the Committee in their letter dated April 23rd. The
conditions were mentioned as:

"1st. That the land is to be used for the purpose of
H acclimatization only.
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STA TE OF W. BENGAL [REDDY, J .J 265

2nd. That Oamivors are not to be kept on any part of it, A
on any account.
3rd. That the grounds are to be kept clear and neat.
4th. That the land must be restored to the Government if
hereafter required. The Zoological Garden Commit-
tee being reimbursed for any expenditure they may B
have incurred in building there."

Dr. Singhvi questioned the authenticity of the documents and also
objected to their reception in evidence on the ground that no founda-
tion had been laid for the reception of secondary evidence. We must
straightaway say that no objection was taken either before the single C
judge Or before the Division Bench either to the authenticity or to the
admissibility of the documents. We do not for a moment doubt the
genuineness of the two documents which have been produced from
old official records. What is important is that the Managing Commit-
tee of the Zoological Garden never doubted the authenticity of the
documents nor was any question ever raised to suggest that the terms D
of the grant were other than those mentioned in the letters. We are
satisfied that for the purposes of the present case, we will be justified
in proceeding on the basis that the land which was undoubtedly
Government land, to start with, was given to the Zoological Garden
upon the terms set out in the two letters. One of the terms was that the
land should be restored to the Government whenever required. E
Another term was that the Zoological Garden Committee would be
suitably compensated for any expenditure incurred by it on the con-
struction of any building on the land.

The further submisison of Dr. Singhvi was that whatever might
have been the terms of the grant in favour of the Zoological Garden, F
the Beng<tl Parks Act, 1904, vested the land in favour of the Zoological
Garden and there was no way by which the Government could divest
the Zoological Garden of the land except by a procedure known to the
law such as acquisition or requisition. We are unable to find any sub-
stance in the argument. The Bengal Parks Act, 1904 was enacted "to
protect public parks and gardens in Bengal from injury and to secure G
the public from molestation annoyence while resorting to such parks
and gardens." The Act was made applicable to the public parks and
gardens mentioned in the schedule. The Zoological Garden, Alipore
was one such park. Section 3 unables the State Government, by notifi-
cation in the official Gazette "to declare that any specified land, bridge or
pontoon shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be included H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

in any park." Section 4 enables the Government to make rules for the
A
management, and preservation of any park, and for regulating the use
thereof by the public. In particular, the rules may regulate the admis-
sion into the park of persons, animals and vehicles, prohibit the caus-
ing of any manner of injury to the trees, plants, monuments, furniture
etc. in the park, prohibit shooting, bir-0-testing etc. prohibit or regu-
B late fishing or boating, prohibit bathing, or the pollution of water by
any other means, prohobit the grazing of horses or ponies, prohibit the
teasing or annoying of animals or birds kept in the park, prohibit the
commission of any nuisance, or the molestation or annoyance of any
person resorting to the park etc. etc. From the Preamble and the
provisions of the Act, it is clear that the Act is intended to protect the
inmates and the property of the park from injury by persons resorting
c to the park and to protect persons resorting to the park from molesta-
tion or annoyance by others. The Act is aimed at protecting the park
and its visitiors from injury and annoyance by despoilers and maraud-
ers. The Act has nothing whatever to do with the vesting of any prop-
erty in the parks. There is infact no provision which deals with the
D vesting of property in a park. Section 3 enables the State Government
to extend by a notification, the boundaries of a park but that can only
be for the purposes of the Act and not for the purpose of vesting or
creating any title in a property. If a piece of adjacent land, for exam-
ple, is taken on lease for a specified number of years by the park and
included in the park by a notification under sec. 3, it does not mean
E that the land has become the property of the park; it only means that
the various things, the doing of which is regulated or prohibited by the
Act and the rules will not be done or will be regulated on the adjacent
land also. We do not think that the provisions of the Bengal Public
Parks Act have any relevance to the question of the power of the
Government to transfer the Begumbari land to the Taj Group of
F Hotels.
,.
One of the arguments strenuously pressed by Dr. Singhvi was
that, even if it was assumed thal the Government had the power to
transfer the land, the Government did not have the power to deal with
the land in any manner that they liked. Certain norms and procedures
G had to be observed and nothing could be done which would result in
loss to the public exchequer. The Bengal Land Manual prescribed the
procedure to be followed in the matter of transferring land belonging
to the Government. That procedure had to be observed. In any case, it
was necessary either to held a public auction or to invite tenders atleast
from the limited class of persons interested in utilising the land for the
H purpose for which the land was proposed to be transfered. The learned
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STATE OF W. _BENGAL (REDDY, J .] 267

counsel invited our attention to several decisions of the court: Rash
"'i A
Bihari Panda v. State of Orissa, (1969] 3 SCR 374; R.D. Shetty v.
International Airport Authority, (1979] 3 SCR 1014; Kasturi Lal Laxmi
Reddy v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1980] 3 SCR 1338; State of
Haryana v. Jage Ram, [1983] 4 SCC 56; Ram & Shyam Co. v. State of
Haryana, [ 1985] 3 SCC 26 and Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Government of
Andhra Pradesh, (1986] 3 SCC 391. B
--i
The West Bengal Land Management Manual, 1977 is published

- '{ under the authority of the Board of Revenue, West Bengal. Like
similar volumes going by whatever name, published by the Boards of
Revenue of other States, the West Bengal Land Management Manual
also is compendium of (1) statutes and rules framed either by the c
-.;. Government or by the Board of Revenue pursuant to a statutory
power conferred on them; (2) Orders issued by the Government from
time to time; and (3) Orders, circulars, instructions and memoranda
issued by the Board of Revenue from time to time. All these are
arranged in such a manner that reference to them by the officials of the
D
Revenue hierarchy is easy. Statutes and statutory orders have, no
doubt, to be obeyed. It does not mean that other orders, instructions,
etc. may be departed from in an individual case, if applicable to the
,,.i
facts. They are not to be ignored until amended. The Government or
the Board may have the power the amend these orders and instruc-
tions, but nonetheless they must be obeyed so long as they are in force
E
~
and are applicable.

The appellants invited our attention to paragraphs 165, 166 and
167 of the Land Management Manual and urged that the rules laid
'}--
down by the provisions have been ignored by the Government of West
Bengal. These provisions of the Land Management Manual do not
F
appear to have anything to do with the transfer and use of the land in
the manner proposed, in which the State also has a vital stake apart
from the mere raising of revenue for the State. Paragraphs 165, 166
and 167 deal with simple cases of creation of non-agricultural tenancies
by way of long term leases. They generally deal with land which is at
the disposal of the Government as waste or surplus land and are in-
G
tended to secure the best revenue for the State. They do not deal with
~
cases of transfer of land for a specific socio-economic object, where,
the securing of immediate revenue is not the principal object but other
special and economic benefits are sought.

In pursuing the socio-economic objective is the State bound to H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A invite tenders or held a public auction? To answer this question, we
may refer to the cases cited at the Bar.

In Rash Bihari Panda v. State of Orissa (supra) the Government
offered the option to purchase kendu leaves to certain old contractors
on the same terms as in the previous year. Realising that the scheme of
B offering to renew contracts with the old licences on the same terms was
open to objection, the Government changed its policy and formulated
a new scheme by which offers were invited from intending puchasers of
Kendu leaves but the invitation was restricted to these individuals who
had carried out the contracts in the previous year without default and
to the satisfaction of the Government. The Court held that the right to
-~ -
make offers being open to a limited class of persons, it effectively shut
c out all other persons carrying on trade in Kendu leaves and also new
entrants into that business. It was, therefore, ex-facie discriminatory
and imposed unreasonable restrictions upon the right of persons other
than existing contractors to carry on business. It is to be seen that in
the present case no one has come forward alleging that he has been
D discriminated against and his fundamental right to carry on business
had been affected. The very nature of the construction and establish-
ment of a Five Star Hotel is indicative of a requirement of expertise
and sound financial position on the part of those who might offer to
construct and establish them. The decision taken by the All-India
l
Tourism Council was an open decision well-known to everyone in the
E hotel business. Yet no one except the I.T.D.C. and the Taj Group of
Hotels had come forward with any proposal. We have it in the record
that the Oberoi Group of Hotels already had a Five Star Hotel in
Calcutta while the Welcome Group of Hotels were making their own
Private negotiations and a1rnngements for establishing a Five Star
Hotel. In the circumstances, particularly in the absenc.: of any leading i
F hoteliers coming forward, the Government of West Bengal was I
perfectly justified in entering into negotiations with.the I.t.D.C. and
the Taj Group of Hotels instead of inviting tenders.

In R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (supra).
Bhagwatti, J., speaking for the Court observed that the activities of
G the Goyernment had a public element and if it entered into any
contract, it must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair
procedure. Whenever the Government dealt with the public, whether
by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or
licences or granting other forms of larges, the Government could not
act arbitrarily at its sweet-will but must act in conformity with
H standards or norms without being arbitrary, irrational or irralevant. If
SACHIDANANDAPANDEYv. STATEOFW. BENGAL[REDDY,J.] 269

the Government departed from such standard or norm in any particu- A
Jar case or cases its action was liable to be struck down unless it could be
shown that the departure was not arbitrary but was based on some
valid principle which was not irrational, unreasonable or dicrimi-
natory. In the present case as earlier explained by us direct negotiation
with these who had come forward with proposals to construct Five Star
Hotels was without doubt the most reasonable and rational way of B
proceeding in the matter rather than inviting tenders or holding public
auction. There was nothing discrrninatory in the procedure adopted
since no other leading hotlier had shown any inclination to come
forward. Tenders and Auction were most impractical in the circum-
stances.

In Kasturilal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
c
(supra), Bhagwati, J. again, speaking for the Court reiterated what
had said earlier in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority
(supra). He proceeded to say,

"The Goveinment, therefore, cannot, for example, give a D
contract or sell or lease out its property for a considerations
less than the highest that can be obtained for it, unless of
course there are other considerations which render it reaso-
nable and in public interest to do so. Such considerations
may be that some Directive Principle is sought to be
advanced on implemented or that the contract or the pr-0- E
perty is given not with a view to earning revenue but for the
purpose of carrying out a welfare scheme for the benefit of
a particular group or section of people deserving it or that
the person who has offered a higher consideration is not
otherwise fit to be given the contract or the property. We
have referred to those considerations only illustratively, for F
there may be an infinite variety of considerations which
may have to be taken into account by the Government in
formulating its policies and it is on a total evaluation of
various considerations which have weighed with the
Government in taking a particular action, that the Court
would have to decide whether the action of the Govern- G
ment is reasonable and in public interest. But one basic
principle which must guide the Court in arriving at its
determination on this question is that there is always a
presumption that the Governmental action is reasonable
and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its
validity to show that is wanting in reasonableness or is not H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one
A
and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the Court
by proper and adequate material. The Court cannot lightly
assume that the action taken by the Government is un-
reasonable or without public interest because, as we said
above, there are a large number of policy considerations
B which must necessarily weigh with the Government in tak-
ing action and therefore the Court would not strike down
governmental action as invalid on this ground, unless it is
clearly satisfied that the action is unreasonable or not in
public interest. But where it is so satisfied, it would be the
plainest duty of the Court under the Constitution to invali-
date the governmental action."
c
With reference to the particular facts of the case, it was stated,

"The argument of the petitioners was that at the auctions
held in December, 1978, January 1979 and April 1979, the
D price of resin realised was as much as Rs. 484, Rs. 520 and
Rs. 700 per quintal respectively and when the market price
was so high, it was improper and contrary to public interest
on the part of the state to sell resin to the second respon-
dents at the rate of Rs. 320 per quintal under the impugned
order. This argument, plausible though it may seem is fal-
E lacious because it does not take into account the policy of
the state not to allow export of resin outside its territories
but to allot in only for use in factories set up within the
State. It is obvious that, in view of this policy, no resin
would be auctioned by the State and there would be no
question of sale of resin in the open market and in this
F situation, it would be totally irrelevant to import the con-
cept of market price with reference to which the adequacy
of the price charged by the State to the second respondents
could be judged. If the State were simply selling resin,
there can be no doubt that the State must endeavour to
obtain the highest price subject, of course, to any other
G over-riding considerations of public interest and in that
event, its action in giving resin to a private individual at a
lesser price would be arbitrary and contrary to public in-
terest. But, where the State has, as a matter of policy,
stopped selling resin to outsiders and decided to allot it
only to industries set up within the State for the purpose of
H encouraging industrialisation, ther can be no scope for
SACHIDANANDAPANDEYv. STATEOFW. BENGAL [REDDY,J.] 271

complaint that the State is giving resin at a lesser price than A
that which could be obtained in the open market. The yar<l-
stick of price in the open market would be wholly inept,
because in view of the State Policy, there would be no
question of any resin being sold in the open market. the
object of the State in such a case is not to earn revenue
from sale of resin, but to promote the setting up of in- B
dustries within the State."
~
And again,

-- ( "If the State were giving tapping contract simpliciter there
can be no doubt that the State would have to auction or
invite tenders for securing the highest price, subject, of
c
~-/ course, to any other relevant overriding considerations of
public weal or interest, but in a case like this where the State
, is allocating resources such as water, power raw materials
etc. for the purpose of encouraging setting up of industries
within the State, we do not think the State is bound to D
advertise and tell the people that it wants a particular in-
dustry to be set up within the State and invite those in-
terested to come up with proposals for the purpose. The
State may choose to do so, if it thinks fit and in a given
situation, it may even turn to be advantageous for the State
to do so, but.if any private party comes before the State and E
offers to set up an industry, the State would not be commit-
ting breach of any constitutional or legal obligation if it
negotiates with such party and agrees to provide resources
and other facilities for the purpose of setting up the
industry."
F
t The observations of the Court in the light of the facts therein appear to
fully justify the action of the West Bengal Government in the present
case not inviting tenders or not holding public auction.

In State of Haryana v. !age Ram (supra), it was held that it was
not open to the Excise Authorities to pick and choose a few persons G
only as the recepients of the notice of reauction. There was no expla-
nation as to how thay came to be chosen and what their status and
standing in the trade were to justify the choice. The conduct of the
authorities was thought not above suspicion. We have already ex-
plained why the choice of the Taj Group of Hotels must be held to be
beyond suspicion and above reproach. H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

In Ram & Shyam Company v. State of Haryana (supra) dealing
A with the question of disposal of State property Desai, J. speaking for
the court said,

"Let us put into focus the clearly demarcated approach that
distinguishes the use and disposal of private property and
B socialist property. Owner of private property may deal with
it in any manner he likes without causing injury to any one
else. But the socialist or if that w.ord is jarring to some, the
community or further the public property has to be dealt
with for public purpose and in public interest. The marked
difference lies in this that while the owner of private pm-
perty may have a number of considerations which may
c permit him to dispose of his property for a song. On the
other hand, disposal of public property pertakes the
character of a trust in that in its disposal there should be
nothing hanky panky and that it must be done at.the best
price so that larger revenue coming into the coffers of the
D State administration would serve public purpose viz. the
welfare State may be able to expand its beneficial acti-
vities by the availability of larger funds. This is subject to
one important limitation that socialist property may be dis-
posed at the price lower than the market price or even for a
token price to achieve some defined constitutionally recon-
E gnised public purpose, one such being to achieve the goals
set out in Part IV of the Constitution. But where disposal is
for augmentation of revenue and nothing else, the State is
under an obligation to secure the best market price avail-
able in a market economy. An owner of private property
need not auction it nor is he bound to dispose it of at a
F current market price. Factors such as personal attachment,
or affinity, kinship, empathy, religious sentiment or limit-
ing the choice to whom he may be willing to sell, may
permit him to sell the property at a song and without
demure. A welfare State as the owner of the public pro-
perty has no such freedom while disposing of the public
G property. A welfare State exists for the largest good of the
largest number more so when it proclaims to be a socialist
State dedicated to eradication of poverty. All its attempt
must be to obtain the best available price while disposing of
its property because the greater the revenue, the welfare
activities will g"t a fillip and shot in the arm. Financial
H constraint may weaken the tempo of activities. Such an
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STATE OF W. BENGAL [REDDY, J.] 273

approach serves the larger public purpose of expanding
A
welfare activities primarily for which Constitution envis·
') ages the setting up of a welfare State."

In Chenchu Rami Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (supra) it
was observed that public officials entrusted with the care of 'public
property' were required to show exemplary vigilance. The Court indi- B
cated that the best method of disposal of such property was by public
--4 auction and not by private negotiation. That was a case where land
belonging to a Math was sold by private trenty for Rs. 20 lakhs when

-- ~
. there were people ready to purchase the land for Rs. 80 lakhs. The dif-
ference between sale of land and other readily saleable commodities
and the allotment of land for establishing a modem Five-Star Hotel of
International standard is so obvious as to need no more explanation. c

1 On a consideration of the relevant cases cited at the bar the
following propositions may be taken as well established. State-owned
or public-owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discre-
tion of the executive. Certain precepts and principles have to be D
observed. Public interest is the paramount consideration. One of the
methods of securing the public interest, when it is considered neces-
sary to dispose of a property, is to sell the property by public auction
... or by inviting tenders. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an
invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling
reasons necessitating departure from the rule but then the reasons for E
.:
the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of dis-
crimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing
justice. Nothing should be done which gives an appearance of bias.
jobbery or nepotism.
''j--
Applying these tests, we find it impossible to hold that the F
\ Government of West Bengal did not act with probity in not inviting
tenders or in not holding a public auction but negotiating straightaway
at arm's length with the Taj Group of Hotels.

The last and final submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants relates to the commercial and financial aspects of the lease. G
According to the learned counsel, the 'nett sales' method of calculat-
--1 ing the compensation payable to the Government for the lease of the
land had totally sacrificed the State's interests. He submits that if the
market value of the land had been fairly determined and the rent had
been stipulated at a percentage of that value, the return to the Govern-
ment would have been much higher. We do not think that there is any H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A basis for any genuine criticism. The 'nett sales' method appears to be a
fairly well known method adopted in similar situations. This was what
was recommended by WEB CON, the consulting agency of the West
Bengal Government which submitted a detailed report on the subject.
This was also the rcommendation of the Committee of Secretaries who
went into the matter in depth. Even to lay persons like us who are no
B financial experts, it appears that the 'nett sales' method does and the
real-based-on-market-value method does not take into account the
appreciating value of land, the inflationary tendency of prices and the
profit orientation. Even on a prima facie, there appears to be nothing
wrong or objectionable in the 'nett sales' method. It is profit oriented
and appears to be in the best interests of the Government of West
Bengal.
c
On a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case,
we are satisfied that the Government of West Bengal acted perfectly
bona fide in granting the lease of Begumbari land to the Taj Group of
Hotels for the construction of a Five-Star hotel in Calcutta. The
D Government of West Bengal did not fail to take into account any
relevant consideration. Its action was not against the interests of the
Zoological Garden or not in the best interests of the animal inmates of
the zoo or migrant birds visiting the zoo. The financial interests of the
State were in no way sacrificed either by not inviting tenders or hold- }...
ing a public auction or by adopting the 'nett sales' method. In the
E result, the judgments of the learned single judge and the Division
Bench of the Calcutta High Court are affirmed and the appeal is dis- ..
missed. In the circumstances of the case, we do not desire to award any
costs.

KHALID, J: The tenacity with which this expensive public in-
F terest litigation was pursued by the petitioners, before the learned
Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and
before this Court is commendable. But, after hearing the lengthy argu-
ments advanced, I ask myself the question whether this exercise could
not have been avoided.

G Originally the writ petition was filed by five persons. The sup-
porting affidavit to the writ petition was sworn to by the first petitioner i,...-
who described himself as a trade unionist. Petitioner No. 2 & 3 are the
life members ·of the Zoo and the remaining two, bona fide residents of
Greater Calcutta and lovers of wild life. The same five persons figured
as appellants before the Division Bench. However, before this Court
H there are only two petitioners, the 1st and the 2nd in the writ petition.
SACHIDANANDA PANDEYv. STATE OFW. BENGAL [KHALID, J.] 275

3rd and 4th petitioners figure here as respondents 6th and 7th. The 5th A
petitioner does not figure in the array of parties.

My learned brother has considered the facts in detail and the
questions of law relevant for the purpose of this appeal. I fully agree
with his conclusions. This short tail piece is with a purpose. This case
goes by the name "Public Interest Litigation." I wish to delineate the B
parameters of public interest litigation concisely, against the back-
ground of the facts of this case, so that this salutory type of litigation
does not lose its credibility. Today public spirited litigants rush to
Course to file cases in profusion under this attractive name. They must
inspire confidence in Courts and among the public. They must be
above suspicious. See the facts of this case and end result.
c
The concern of the appellants has been to preserve the Zoo, to
i protect and encourage the migratory birds, to keep their trajectory
clear, to preserve their diurnal feed and nocturnal habitat and to prn-
tect the Zoo. To serve this purpose they want to prevent a·5-Star Hotel
coming up in its vicinity in four acres land belonging to the Zoo and D
thus to see that this land is not lost to the Zoo. The litigation has been
pending from 1982 and in the bargin what has happened is described
by the learned Trial Judge as follows, in paragraph 130 of his
Judgment:

"130. Prayer for stay of the operation of this order is re- E
jected. Because of the pendency of this matter, valuable
time has been lost and if further time is lost, the respondent
No. 5 may not have any further interest in the matter. They
have suffered sufficient loss and the Govt. will also suffer
loss. The public has also suffered. Accordingy, I am not
inclined to stay this matter any further. I ought to point out F
further that as the petitioners Cibtained the interim order,
obviously they were not interested in an early hearing of
this matter and until a few months back no step was taken
to have this matter heard. If a stay is granted, similar situa-
tion will follow."
G
This public interest litigation takes its birth, perhaps from the
righteous indignation of the petitioners, against the State Government
at their bartering away of four acres of land belonging to the Zoo to
the Taj Group of Hotels. The writ petition is mainly based on the
ground that the decision of the Government is arbitrary. The question
to be answered is whether this accusation can be justified. On a H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11987] 2 S.C.R.

A perusal of the records I find that the State Government had made
available to the Court all the relevant documents so as to satisfy the
Court about the propriety of its action. This is how the trial Judge deals
about this aspect of the case:

"4. Before I deal with the contention of the parties before
B me.I ought to point out one thing. In this case, ultimately
the hearing was not confined only in respect of the mate-
rials specified in the petition and affidavits or annexure to
the same, but the submissions were based on the further
documents and files produced before me mainly by the
State and also some documents by the private respondent
being respondent No. 5. I ought to point out that this is one
c of the exceptional cases where the State has made available
to this Court all documents in connection with the proposal
for lending over a piece of the State Government land to
respondent No. 5 to enable them to construct a 5-star
hotel in Calcutta. The State Government has produced be-
D fore me the ori~~nal files, including those containing the
notes and Cabinet Memorandum for my inspection, the •
facts which I shall set out herein are gathered from these
records and files produced before me, though most of them
do not find place in the affidavits ............. "

E The two portions of Judgment extracted above show that things:
- one, the petitioners did not take any steps to get the matter heard
expeditiously, after they obtained an interim order to get all the work
stopped; two, that the State Government made available to the Court
all the materials to prove that its decision was taken after mature _,.....
consideration at all levels.
F
1
The appellants failed before the learned Trial Judge on all the
points raised by them. After an exhaustive discussion of the various
aspects of the case, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the petition. The
only ground on which the appellants succeeded before the Trial Judge
G was on locus standi. This preliminary objection of the Hotel Group
was rejected.

The matter was taken in appeal. The Division Bench in an
equally reasoned Judgment, adverting to all the factual aspects of the
case, upheld the Judgment of the learned Trial Judge and dismissed
H the appeal.
SACHJDANANDAPANDEYv. STAlEOFW. BENGAL [KHALJD,J.] 277

One redeeming factor in this case is the total absence of any A
allegation of malafides against the Government by the petitioners.
This is how the Division Bench deals with aspect of the case in its
Judgment:

"The appellants before us have impunged the State Gover-
nent's decision to grant aforesaid four acres of land out of B
Begumbari Compound to India Hotel Co. Ltd., mainly on
the ground that the same was unreasonable and arbitrary.
The State Government did not apply its mind to relevant
facts before disposing of the said valuable lands in dischrge
y of the public interest. In their writ petition or in course of
' their submissions before us the appellants did not try to C
make out a case of personal malice against the State
Government or its Ministers and Civil Servants ......... "

The Division Bench held that the decision taken was neither
unreasonable nor arbitrary and that taking away of four acres of land
from the Zoo was not detrimental to public interest. D

One would have thought that the concurrent decisions of the
learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, on the facts of the case,
would have persuaded the appellants, to rest content with the litiga-
tion by accepting the verdicts so given. They could have moved the
Government or taken other steps to expedite the starting of an addi- E
tional Zoo with a larger extent which the Government promised. But
the appellants felt that public interest would be served better by
moving this Court for reconsideration of the factual details. When the
matter came up before this Court, this Court gave priority to this case
-f-- despite the huge pendency of cases before it, to see whether public
' interest was really in peril or not. F
t During the course of the arguments, we soared high along with
the migratory birds into the realms of ecology, environmental protec-
tion, public interest, natural justice, arbitrariness, eminent domain
and the like and ultimately, from those ethereal regions descended on
the terraferma faced with the reality that this case is devoid of any G
merits and has only to be dismissed. That is why I prefaced this Judg-
ment with the observation that this was an avoidable exercise.
\
The approach of the Taj Group Hotels in this case has been
creditably fair. They have given all the assurances necessary to pFe-
serve the Zoo and its inmates. They were willing to afford all the H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.
requisite safeguards. In the place of a dilapidated hospital, operation
A
theatre and the like, they constructed buildings anew at a cost of Rs.30
lakhs which amount they were entitled to be reimbursed under clause
25 of the lease, which they voluntarily gave up. In addition to this, they
surrendered an area of 288 sq. mtrs. from the land allotted to them to
the Zoo. They agreed to build not the usual skyscrapper hotel, but a
B garden hotel, the height of which would not go beyond 75 feet, despite
the fact that there existed in the surrounding area buildings which were
very high. This was done to keep free the route of the flight of the
birds. They also agreed to have subdued light in the hotel, again in the
interest of the birds. They agreed to keep the surroundings of the hotel
and the flora well maintained. We were told that already 30000 plants
were getting ready to adorn the area to be occupied by them.
c
Regarding the commercial and financial aspects of the lease also
there is nothing secretive though they came in for sharp criticism at the
hands of the appellants before us. This criticism again, according to
me, is unfounded. The learned. counsel for the Taj Group made avail-
D
able to us, the method adopted. The method adopted is the nett sales
method of calculating the compensation paid. This is a fairly well
known method adopted in such situations. This method was also sub-
ject to criticism by the appellants' counsel and he in support of his
submission handed over to us a calculation, which according to me,
betrays unawareness with the method of calculation to be adopted in
E
similar cases. The calculation given to us so far as its arithmetic is
concerned is correct. That is this. An amount of 4 crores, if deposited
in bank, at a particular rate of compound interest, for 99 years, would
swell to an astronomical figure. This calculation is relevant only when
you think of selling the land and investing the sale proceeds in a bank.
This calculation conveniently forgets that what is involved here is not
F
the sale of the land but a lease by the Government, as a policy decision
to the hotel group to start a Five Star Hotel, which according to the
t
Government was a prime need to the city of Calcutta. The calculation
handed over has no bearing to the facts of this case at all.

G A deal like this cannot be concluded by public auction. Here, we
do not have a case, again, sale of a Government property. Therefore,
public auction has necessarily to be ruled out. Only Taj Group of _}.....
Hotels came forward with an offer to start the hotel. The lease was the
culmination after a long, elaborate and open procedure with nothing
to hide which therefore cannot justifiably be subject to adverse
H criticism.
SACHIDANANDAPANDEYv. STATEOFW.BENGAL[KHALID,J.] 279

't My purpose in adding these few lines of my own is to highlight
A
the need for restraint on the part of the public interest litigants when
they move Courts. Public interest litigation has now come to stay. But
one is led to think that it poses a threat to courts and public alike. Such
cases are now filed without any rhyme· or reason. It is, therefore,
necesary to lay down clear guide-lines and to outline the correct
parameters for enterainment of such petitions. If courts do not restrict B
'-1 the free flow of such cases in the name of Public Interest Litigations,
the traditional litigation will suffer and the courts of law, instead of
-< y dispensing justice, will have to take upon themselves administrative
and executive functions.

I should not be understood to say that traditional litigation c
i should stay put. They have to be tackled by other effective methods,
like decentralising the judicial system and entrusting majority of tradi-
tional litigation to village courts and Lok Adiilats without the usual
populist stance and by a complete restructuring of the procedural law
which is the villain in delaying disposal of cases.
D

It is only when courts are apprised of gross violation of funda-
mental rights 'by a group or a class action or when basic human rights
~ are invaded or when there are complaints of such acts as shock the
\
judicial conscience that the courts, especially this Court, should leave

- aside procedural shackles and hear such petitions and extend its juris- E
diction under all available provisions for remedying the hardships and

~.. miseries of the needy, the under-dog and the neglected. I will be
__ second to none in extending help when such help is required. But this
does not mean that the doors of this Court are always open for anyone
tto walk in. It is necessary to have some self imposed restrain of public
interest litigants. F

Ultimately, by the dismissal of this appeal, the hotel will be
completed and will be commissioned. Six long years have passed by. I
do not think that the appellants have achieved anything. The first
appellant who is a trade unionist has not espoused any grievance of the
G
-I mazdoors before us. It was faintly suggested by the Government's
counsel that the first petitioner does not represent all the mazdoors.
This was refuted by the appellants. For the purpose of this case, we
will accept the assertion of the first appellant. Still, we did not have
before us any of their grievances ventilated, which, if there were any,
we would have willingly considered.
H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A I conclude this short Judgment, with a lurking doubt in my mind, y
and with a question "Is there something more than what meets the eye
in this case?"

S.R. Appeal dismissed.

..
_.-·
t