# SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

- **Citation:** [1987] 2 S.C.R. 223
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1987-02-11
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 378 H of 1987
- **Bench:** O. Chinnappa Reddy, V. Khalid
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sachidananda-pandey-v-state-of-west-bengal-ors-9465
- **Pages:** 58

## Headnote

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 alloting 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
A
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 2 S.C.R.
Public Interest Litigation, parameters. delineation need for stressed.
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 restored to the government if hereafter required, the Zoological Garden
Committee being reimbursed for any expenditure they may have ineurred in building there." In this eight acres of land there are some old
buildings and the vacant land was used for fodder cultivation,for raisE
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 Fiv

## Text

_Characters 0–39,924 of 150,260. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39924 for what follows._

SACHIDANANDA PANDEY
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
FEBRUARY 11, 1987
A
[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 alloting 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
A
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 2 S.C.R.
Public Interest Litigation, parameters. delineation need for stressed.
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 restored to the government if hereafter required, the Zoological Garden
Committee being reimbursed for any expenditure they may have ineurred in building there." In this eight acres of land there are some old
buildings and the vacant land was used for fodder cultivation,for raisE
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 Director of the Zoo to apparently knew about the proposal right from the
start. A note was then prepared by the Secretary, Metropolitan
r
Development Department and put up to the Chief Minister for his
approval. The Chief Minister approved the proposal and required it to
be placed before the Cabinet. On .January 7, 1981 a memorandum was B
I
prepared for the consideration of the Cabinet explaining the need for
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- c
cal Gardens on the Belvedere Road it is possible to carve out about four
·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 negotialions 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
H
of the Director of the Zoo, suggested that 2 to 2'h acres of land might be
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
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 proposals 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 Managing Committee met again and passed another resolution by which they
withdrew their earlier objections dated 11.6.1981.
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
l
--t•··
' '
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 fmancial 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 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. Note 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 Government 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 government 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
l'
four acres of Begumbari land to the Taj Group of Hotels. On September 29, 1981 the Government of West Bengal officially conveyed its
acceptance of the proposal of the Taj Group of Hotels for the construction 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 recommend to the Committee of management that the demarcated area of
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
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
B
c
D
E
F
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
A
B
c
228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 2 S.C.R.
meters out of the plot given to them 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 commit·
tee was constitued to supervise the construction of alternative facilities.
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
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 :ii
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
H
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.
SACHIDANANDA PANDEY v. STATE OF W. BENGAL
229
A learned Single Jndge of the High Court dismissed the writ
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 judgment. Hence the appeal by Special leave of the Court.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
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
citizen of India "to protect and improve the natural environment including 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
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
question involves the nice balancing of relevant considerations, the
court may feel justified in resigning itself to acceptance of the decision
A
B
c
D
E
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 considerations 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
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
G
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 forwarded 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
c on the alleged obstruction likely to be caused by a multi-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 multistoreyed 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 manageE
F
ment had discussed the matter at length with a representative of the
Wild Life Fund who, after discussion had been satisfied that the proposed 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
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-
(
-f
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
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
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.
A
B
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
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 argument 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.
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
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
232
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 2 S.C.R.
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 A!isembly. l264B· DI
4. 1 The two letters dated 23.4. 1880 and 7. 7. 1880, pertaining to
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 objection 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
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 Constitntion. 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 incurred by it on the construction of any building on the land. [26SE]
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
Zoological Garden Committee in 1880 in accordance with the condilions 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 required. The Zoological Garden Committee being reimbursed for any
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
inmates and the property of the park from injury by persons resorting
\
j
~
)
~I
I
)
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
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
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 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 intended to secure the best revenue for
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
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
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
234
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987) 2 S.C.R.
rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule, bnt then the reasons for the departure
must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Nothing should be
done which gives an appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism. [2730-F)
6.3 Applying .the above tests, it cannot be held that the government 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
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 construct and establish them. The decision taken by the All-India Tourism
Council was an open dedsion well-known to everyone in the hotel business. 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
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. Negotations 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
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.
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.
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
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 government 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
in no way sacrificed either by not inviting tenders or holding a public
auction or by adopting the "nett sales" method. [274C-EJ
A
B
c
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 recommendation 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 inflationary 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. [27 4A-C]
Per Kah/id J. (concurring)
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
E
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 functions. 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 neglected. 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]
c
D
E
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
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 surrendered an area of 288 sq. metrs. from the land allotted to them to the
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
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 justifiably 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 quoting. 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.
"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.
G
H
238
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 2 S.C.R.
red man. We are part of the earth and it is part of us.