# )- > • ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA v. PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST AND ORS - **Citation:** [2007] 1 S.C.R. 87 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2007-01-04 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2007 - **Bench:** Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, Al Tamas Kabir - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/st-a-te-of-maharashtra-v-public-concern-for-governance-trust-and-ors-22913 - **Pages:** 25 ## Headnote B Strictures : Expunction of adverse remarks-Chief Minister endorsing 'please put up' on application addressed to him for allotment of plots by SocietiesApplications forwarded to the Authority for pocessing-Allotment of land C to the Societies-Unwarranted observations made against Chief Minister by High Court-Appeal by State for expunging of remarks-Held: Notation 'please put up' by Chief Minister merely means that the Department should process the applications in accordance with the procedure -It does not mean approval-High Court erred in making observations regarding notations made in files on their own reading and interpretation of the files-Chief Minister not made party to the case nor called for explanation-- Also, appeal by State maintainable since observations and strictures made by High Court would affect working and functioning of office of Chief Minister-Thus, strictures/observations/remarks made by High Court not warranted and are expunged-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 21, 226 and 132. Expunction of remarks-Passing of commentslobservationslstricturers against an individual not party to the proceedings nor direction made to be party and without giving him hearing-Held : Such act amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice-It would have wide ramifications and adverse impact on the career of the individual-He has right to have his reputation-Thus, such comments/observations structures made not warranted and are expunged-Constitution of India, 1950Articles 21, 226 and 132. D E F G With regard to Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2007, CIDCO-Corporation grants plots in Navi Mumbai for construction and development under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 read with prevalent development control regulations for Navi Mumbai. Respondent Nos. 5to10Societies filed applications for allotment of residential plot for housing H 'ir7 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I S.C.R A society to the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra who was also the Minister for Urban Development. It was stated that CIDCO may allot the plot for residential purposes as per the prevailing rules. The then Chief Minister made noting on the five applications "please put up". The applications were forwarded to the Authority-CIDCO for processing and B they added their endorsements reading please process early or words to that effec't. Chief Minister did not make any other noting or endorsement on the said files. The sixth application though addressed to the Chief Minister, but no endorsement was made by the Chief Minister on the said file. At no stage the file reached the office of the Chief Minister. CIDCO processed the six applications and made allotments of land to the coC operative housing societies. Public Interest Litigation was filed challenging the allotments to the six Cooperative Housing Societies. High Court called for the files relating to the allotment and set aside the allotment. It on its own conclusions and interpretations of the file notations without calling for any explanation, made certain unwarranted observations as regards the D making of the application to the then Chief Minister as also the notation "please put up" made by the then Chief Minister in the five applications. Hence the present appeal for expunging of certain remarks made by High Court agaiQst·the then Chief Minister. E F G H With regard to Civil Appeal No. 15 of2007, Public Interest Litigation was filed. High Court disposed of the writ petition making certain observations against the appellant, then appointed as Managing DirectorCIDCO even though he was not a party to the said proceedings nor was directed to be made a party to the PIL. It was observed that during the tenure of the appellant plots of certain project were allotted in contravention of conditions of allotment and the scrutiny was given a complete go-by and as such there was a complete dereliction of duty. The Authorities were directed to take appropriate action against the persons conc ## Text _Characters 0–39,976 of 59,675. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39976 for what follows._ )- > • ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA A v. PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST AND ORS. JANUARY 4, 2007 [Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] B Strictures : Expunction of adverse remarks-Chief Minister endorsing 'please put up' on application addressed to him for allotment of plots by SocietiesApplications forwarded to the Authority for pocessing-Allotment of land C to the Societies-Unwarranted observations made against Chief Minister by High Court-Appeal by State for expunging of remarks-Held: Notation 'please put up' by Chief Minister merely means that the Department should process the applications in accordance with the procedure -It does not mean approval-High Court erred in making observations regarding notations made in files on their own reading and interpretation of the files-Chief Minister not made party to the case nor called for explanation-- Also, appeal by State maintainable since observations and strictures made by High Court would affect working and functioning of office of Chief Minister-Thus, strictures/observations/remarks made by High Court not warranted and are expunged-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 21, 226 and 132. Expunction of remarks-Passing of commentslobservationslstricturers against an individual not party to the proceedings nor direction made to be party and without giving him hearing-Held : Such act amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice-It would have wide ramifications and adverse impact on the career of the individual-He has right to have his reputation-Thus, such comments/observations structures made not warranted and are expunged-Constitution of India, 1950Articles 21, 226 and 132. D E F G With regard to Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2007, CIDCO-Corporation grants plots in Navi Mumbai for construction and development under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 read with prevalent development control regulations for Navi Mumbai. Respondent Nos. 5to10Societies filed applications for allotment of residential plot for housing H 'ir7 88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I S.C.R A society to the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra who was also the Minister for Urban Development. It was stated that CIDCO may allot the plot for residential purposes as per the prevailing rules. The then Chief Minister made noting on the five applications "please put up". The applications were forwarded to the Authority-CIDCO for processing and B they added their endorsements reading please process early or words to that effec't. Chief Minister did not make any other noting or endorsement on the said files. The sixth application though addressed to the Chief Minister, but no endorsement was made by the Chief Minister on the said file. At no stage the file reached the office of the Chief Minister. CIDCO processed the six applications and made allotments of land to the coC operative housing societies. Public Interest Litigation was filed challenging the allotments to the six Cooperative Housing Societies. High Court called for the files relating to the allotment and set aside the allotment. It on its own conclusions and interpretations of the file notations without calling for any explanation, made certain unwarranted observations as regards the D making of the application to the then Chief Minister as also the notation "please put up" made by the then Chief Minister in the five applications. Hence the present appeal for expunging of certain remarks made by High Court agaiQst·the then Chief Minister. E F G H With regard to Civil Appeal No. 15 of2007, Public Interest Litigation was filed. High Court disposed of the writ petition making certain observations against the appellant, then appointed as Managing DirectorCIDCO even though he was not a party to the said proceedings nor was directed to be made a party to the PIL. It was observed that during the tenure of the appellant plots of certain project were allotted in contravention of conditions of allotment and the scrutiny was given a complete go-by and as such there was a complete dereliction of duty. The Authorities were directed to take appropriate action against the persons concerned. Charge sheet was issued to the appellant. Government sought action against the appellant by the tribunal since the High Court directed so. Hence the present appeals. Allowing the appeal of the State and partly allowing the appeal of the Managing Director-CIDCO, the Court HELD : 1.1. Various applications and representations on diverse subjects are received by the Chief Ministers of the States as th.e Head of STATE v. PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST 89 the State and in respect of the Ministries under their control. Often such A applications are directly addressed by members of the public to the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister then endorses the same to the concerned department so that the same may subsequently be followed up by the concerned department. When the Chief Minister is on tour in various parts of the State, representations and applications are given to him by various people who meet him. In the routine course, the Chief Minister endorses the same with a noting "please put up" and forward the same to the concerned department. Such notation merely means that the concerned department should process the applications and representations lawfully B and in accordance with certain prescribed procedure. While making such n.otations on the representations/applications so received, the Chief Minister C does not analyse each and every case since this is to be done at the level of the concerned department which then scrutinizes the same in accordance with law. The notation is not even treated as a determination of eligibility or the merit of the concerned application. It is a routine notation made in the normal course and is really an action of forwarding to the concerned department the representations/applications received by the Chief Minister. The concerned department is then expected to examine the said representations/applications and decide the same on its own merits and in accordance with law. As to how he treats the file, the nomenclature given to such matters are of matters of internal administration of the concerned D department/corporation. (Para 17) [98-F-H, 99-A-C) E 1.2. The observations and strictures made by the High Court reflects on the functioning of the office of the Chief Minister and day-to-day discharge of the duties of the Chief Minister. After the endorsement 'please put up', is made the file may or may not be approved by the concerned department and it is clear that the said notations are not approval of the contents of the F representation and no other meaning could be taken. The High Court has erred in holding that by making a notation 'please put up' the applications had blessings of the then Chief Minister. [Para 19] [99-F-H, 100-A] 1.3. The Civil Appeal at the instance of the State of Maharashtra is maintainable inasmuch as the observations and strictures made by the High Court shall affect the working and functioning of the office of the Chief Minster of the State. The submission of the first respondent that these averments had been made on the basis of the recommendations by the Chief Minster or other high functionaries acting at his behest and that all the rules and norms had been disregarded by CIDCO as a consequence of such G H A B c D E F G SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R. recommendations has absolutely so basis whatsoever. The grievances expressed against the then Chief Minister is nothing but imaginary. Except making the endorsement 'please put up' the Chief Minister has not played any other role. [Para 19) (100-A-D] 1.4. As the High Court has erred in making observations as regards notations made in files which observations are made on their own reading and interpretation of the files without any further reference to the petitions or the then Chief Minister who was not even a party to the case and without even calling for an explanation in that regard. High Court has failed to notice that the Chief Minister was heading the Urban Development Department and CIDCO comes under the administrative control of the urban development and since the applications for allotment ofland were received by the Chief Minister, who merely made a notation that the application be put up before the concerned authority. No notation whatsoever was made that the applications be processed · by any pa~ticular date. The words 'please put up', only meant that the applications should be processed and decided in accordance with law and on its own merits. CIDCO which is a Corporation had detailed rules which govern the allotment ofland and are to be complied with by CIDCO before any allotment ofland is made. The records placed indicates that the applications put up to CIDCO were processed at various levels including the marketing manager, assistant marketing officer, managing director and upto the stage of board of directors. The High Court also erred in observing that the application made by respondent No.10 had been received by the Chief Minister and bore his endorsement on 05.04.2005 to the effect please process and pass by 12.04.2004. The said documents have been perused. The above endorsement is not written by the Chief Minister and in fact the said application did not even reach the office of the Chief Minister at any point of time. (Para 21] (101-E-H, 102-A] 1.5. Allegations have been made against the then Chief Minister, however, he was not matie party before the Court. High Court did not give an opportunity to the affected party, the then Chief Minister, before making remarks. It cannot be gain said that the nature of remarks made in the impugned judgment will cast a serious aspersion on the Chief Minister affecting his reputation, career etc. Condemnation of the then Chief Minister without affording opportunity of being heard was a complete negation of the basic principles of natural justice. (Therefore, the allegations made against him are one-sided and do not merit any consideration.) The H observations/strictures made and the inference drawn by the High Court . -( ... }- STA TE v. PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST 91 from the notation 'please put up' made by the Chief Minister, behind his A >' back and without calling for an explanation from him is wholly illegal, incorrect and unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and are expunged. (Paras 19, 23, 24 & 25) (107-D-F, 99-H) Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka and Anr. v. State of Assam and Anr., (19961 6 SCC 234; Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'La/an' (VIII) & Anr. v. Union of India and B Ors., [2006) 6 SCC 613; Dr. JN. Banavalikar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr., [1995) Suppl. 4 SCC 89; S. Pratap Singh v. The State J' of Punjab, [1964) 4 SCR 733 and A.K.K. Nambiar v. Union of India and Anr., (1969) 3 SCC 864, relied on. 2.1. High Court was not right in passing comments/observations/ c strictures against the appellant-Managing Director of CIDCO when the appellant was not a party to the said proceedings nor was directed to be made a party and also without giving an opportunity to the appellant of being heard. The act of High Court is in gross violations of the principles of natural justice. The observations made are also based on complete D misunderstanding of the facts. The observations made would have wide ramifications and adverse impact on the career of the appellant. (The .f. observations/strictures and remarks made by High Court against the appellant behind his back is totally uncalled for and not warranted.) Therefore, the remarks/observations/strictures made against the appellant E are expunged. (Paras 30, 31 & 36) [110-B-C; D-E, 111-F] 2.2. When an 11uthority takes a decision which may have civil conseque11ces and affects the rights of a person, the principles of natural justice would at once come into play. Reputation of an individual is important part of ones life. One is entitled to have and preserve ones F .,, reputation and one also has a right to protect it. In case any authority in discharge of its duties fastened upon it under the law, travels into the realm of personal reputation adversely affecting him, it must provide a chance to "! him to have his say in the matter. In such circumstances, right of an individual to have the safeguard of the principles of natural justice before being adversely commented upon is statutorily recognized and violation of G the same will have to bear the scrutiny of judicial review. [Paras 33 & 35) (111-A-B, E) '7 State of Bihar v. Lal Krishna Advani and Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 361; Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar Raghavendranath H 92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R. A Natkarni, [1983) 1 SCC 124; Dr. Dilip Kumar Delea and Anr. v. State of Assam and Anr., [1996) 6 SCC 234; Rajiv Ranjan Singh 'La/an' (VIII) & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., [2006) 6 SCC 613; Dr. JN.. Banavalikar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr., [1995) Suppl.4 SCC 89 and A.K.K. Nambiar v. Union of India and Anr,. [1969) 3 B sec 864, relied on. DF Marion v. Minnie Davis, [1955) American LR 171, refered to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 14 of2007 c From the Final Judgment and Order dated 23.11.2005 of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay in P.L. No. 43/2005. WITH C.A. No. 15 of2007. D F.S. Nariman, R.F. Nariman, Mukul Rohtagi, P.H. Parekh, E.R. Kumar, Sameer Parekh, Ranjeeta Rohtagi, Nitin Thukral, Sumit Goel (for Mis. P.H. Parekh & Co.), Parimal K. Shroff, Bina Gupta, lnklee Barooah, Amrita Swarup, V.N. Raghupathy, Siddhartha Chowdhury for the Appellant and Vinay Mohan Lal, Appellant-In-Person (in C.A. No. E 1512007). G .E. V ahanvati, Solicitor General oflndia, Ravi Kadam, Adv. General for State of Maharashtra, Chander Uday Singh, Altaf Ahmed,.S.S. Shinde, R.P. Wadhwani, Varun Thakur, Sanjay Dubey, A.S. Bhasme, Vinay Navare and F Naresh Kumar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : G CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2007 (Arising out ofS.L.P. (Civil) No. 18965 of2006) l. Leave granted. 2. The appellant State of Maharashtra has filed the above appeal from H the judgm~nt and order of the Bombay High Court dated 23 .05 .2005 only for ~. '· _.,. :' - '( f < STATE v. PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 93 the purpose of expunging certain remarks made by the High Court, A inasmuch as the same may affect the working and functioning of the office of the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra. BACKGROUND FACTS: 3. The City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) is an B authority constituted under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) for development of Navi Mumbai as a township. 4. CIDCO grants plots in Navi Mumbai for construction and development under the MRTP Act read with prevalent development control regulations for Navi Mumbai. There are detailed regulations and procedures for allotment of land by CIDCO to various entities. 5. Five different applications were made by respondent Nos. 5 to 10 to the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra who was also the Minister for Urban Development. All business of Urban Development Department was under the control of the Minister for urban development. 6. The then Chief Minister in tum noted on five of the said applications the words "please put up". Since the authority concerned i.e. CIDCO was required to process the same, the said applic rules and norms had been disregarded by CIDCO as a consequence of such recommendations. Respondent No. I accordingly pleaded in para 4 and 14 of the writ petition that it appeared that these illegal allotments had been H 98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R. A made at the behest of the Chief Minister or other Ministers of the Government of Maharashtra and in para 14 have specifically called upon CIDCO to confirm or deny this fact. B c D 15. According to the first respondent, it is apparent from the documents produced before the High Court and the manner in which allotments were made by CIDCO that this was done only on the behest of the then Chief Minister. Learned senior counsel for the first respondent further submitted that the special leave petition was filed to seek expunction of certain adverse comments made against the former Chief Minister of Maharashtra was filed by the State of Maharashtra and not by Shri Sushi! Kumar Shinde. According to the learned counsel, it is not open to the State of Maharashtra to now file a special leave petition to challenge the said findings or remarks and that if at all anybody is aggrieved by the said finding or remarks, it would be the former Chief Minister and he had chosen not to file any special leave petition nor to question the same. Hence, the present special leave petition is not maintainable. While winding up his argument, learned senior counsel for the first respondent made a prayer that he would now implead the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra - Shri Sushi! Kumar Shinde as a party respondent and that permission in that regard may be granted to him in view of the importance of the public interest litigation. E 16. We have given our anxious and careful consideration to the F G H submissions made by both the learned senior counsel. We have also carefully perused the pleadings, documents, annexures and the rulings cited at the time of hearing. 17. Various applications and representations on diverse subjects are received by the Chief Ministers of the States as the Head of ~he State and in respect of the l'y1inistries under their control. Often such applications are directly addressed by members of the public to the Chief Minister. The Chief Minister then endorses the same to the concerned department so that the same may subsequently be followed up by the concerned department. When the Chief Minister is on tour in various parts of the State, representations and applications are given to him by various people who meet him. In the routine course, the Chief Minister endorses the same with a noting "please put up" and forward the same to the concerned department. Such notation merely means that the concerned department should process the applications and representations lawfully and in accordance with certain ~ ,. __ STATE v. PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST [LAKSHMANAN, J.] C}) prescribed procedure. While making such notations on the representations/ A - .. "" applications so received, the Chief Minister does not analyse each and every case since this is to be done at the level of the concerned department which then scrutinizes the same in accordance with law. In our view, the notation is not even treated as a determination of eligibility or the merit of the concerned application. It is a routine notation made in the normal course and is really an action of forwarding to the concerned department the representations/applications received by the Chief Minister. The concerned department is then expected to examine the said representations/applications and decide the same on its own merits and in accordance with law. As rightly pointed out by learned Solicitor General as to how he treats the file the nomenclature given to such matters are of matters of internal administration of the concerned department/corporation. 18. It is pointed out to us that in the present case, the Chief Minister was heading the Urban Development Department. CIDCO comes under the administrative control of the said department. Since applications for allotment of land were received by the Chief Minister, he merely made a notation that the applications be put up before the concerned authority. No notation whatsoever was made that the applications be processed by any particular date. The words please put up, in our opinion, only meant that the applications should be processed and decided in accordance with law and on its own merits. CIDCO which is a Corporation had detailed rules which govern the allotment of land and are to be complied with by CIDCO before any allotment of land is made. The records placed before us indicates that the applications put up to CIDCO were processed at various levels including the marketing manager, assistant marketing officer, managing director and upto the stage of board of directors. 19. In our view, the observations and strictures made by the High Court and are extracted in paragraphs supra certainly reflects on the functioning of the office of the Chief Minister and day-to-day discharge of the duties of the Chief Minister. As rightly pointed out by learned Solicitor General, after the endorsement 'please put up', is made the file may or may not be approved by the concerned department and it is clear that the said notations are not approval of the contents of the representation and in our view, no other meaning could be taken. The observations/strictures made and the inference drawn by the High Court from the notation please put up made by the Chief Minister are not warranted and are required to be expunged as rightly contended by learned senior counsel for the State of B c D E F G H -~\ 100 SUPREME.COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R. A Maharashtra. The High Court has, in our view, erred in holding that by . B c D E F G H making a notation please put up the applicants had blessings of the then >< • ~ Chief Minister. In our opinion, the civil appeal at the instance of the State of Maharashtra is maintainable inasmuch as the observations and strictures made by the High Court shall affect the working and functioning of the office of the Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra. The submission of learned senior counsel for the first respondent that the first respondent had learnt that these averments had' been -made on the basis of· the recommendations by the Chief Minister or other high functionaries acting at his behest and that all the rules and norms had been disregarded by CIDCO as a consequence of such recoinmenda:tions as absolutely no basis whatsoever. The grievances expressed against tlie then Chief Minister is nothing but imaginary. Except making the endorsement 'please:put up' the Chief Minister has not played any other role. The observations and strictures passed by the High Court against the then Chief Minister behind his back and without calling for an explanation from him is wholly illegal, incorrect and unwarranted and that.the remarks made by the High Court against the then Chief Minister was most uncharitable and not called for. 20. We have perused.the documents at page Nos. 139, 141, 143, 145, 147 and 149. At page 139, an application was made on behalf of Seaquan Cooperative Housing Society, Bombay requesting for allotment ofresidential plot for housing society at Sector-4, Plot No.24-B, Nerul. The said application was addressed to Shri Sushi! Kumar Shinde, the then Chief Minister of the Maharashtra State. It was stated in the said application that CIDCO may allot the plot for residential purposes as per prevailing rules and that the applicants are ready to pay the necessary lease premium as per. the rules and regulations. Since the application was made.directly to the Chief Minister, he made an endorsement please put up on the same. At page 141, another application was made by Amey Cooperative Housing Society, Bombay requesting for allotment ofresidential plot at Sector-4, Plot No. 24-A, Nerul addressed to the then ChiefMinister. Similar endorsement 'please put up' was made by the Chief Minister on this application. At page 143, a similar application was made by Sagarika Cooperative Housing Society requesting for allotment of residential plot addressed to the Chief Minister who made an endorsement saying 'please put up'. At page 145, Sealink Cooperative Housing Society made an application requesting for allotment of residential plot addressed to the Chief Minister who made an endorsement 'please put up'. An application was made at page 147 by Sea-view Cooperative Housing STATE v. PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST [LAKSHMANAN, J.) 101 Society addressed to the then Chief Minister who also made an endorsement saying 'please put up'. At page 149, an application made for allotment of developed land for residential purpose was made by Vinayak Cooperative Housing Society addressed to the then Chief Minister. The said application, though addressed to the Chief Minister, no endorsement whatsoever was made by the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on the said file. The said file at no stage reached the office of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The role of the Chief Minister ended on his endorsing 5 out of 6 files with the noting 'please put up'. Thereafter, the said 6 applications as per the records made available at the time of hearing were processed by CIDCO and CIDCO made allotment of lands to the said 6 Cooperative Housing Societies. These allotments were challenged in PIL No.43 of 2005 on various grounds. The High Court, after calling for the file of CIDCO relating to the said 6 allotments and perusing the same, by its judgments and order dated 23 .11.2005 set aside the same. Challenging the said judgment Amey Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. filed special leave petition No.336 of 2006 questioning the correctness of the said judgment and the allotments made by CIDCO with which we are not concerned in this Civil Appeal. Elaborate and lengthy submissions were made in that case by the Senior Counsel appearing for the ; respective parties. The said special leave petition No. 336 of 2006 will separately be dealt with on merits by a separate judgment. 21. We are of the opinion that the strictures/observations/remarks made by the High Court against the then Chief Minister Shri Sushi! Kumar Shinde is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case as according to us the High Court has erred in making observations as regards notations made in files which observations are made on their own reading and interpretation of the files without any further reference to the petitions or the then Chief Minister who was not even a party to the case and without even calling for an explanation in that regard. The High Court has failed to notice that the Chief Minister was heading the Urban Development Department and CIDCO comes under the administrative control of the urban development and since the applications for allotment of land were received by the Chief Minister, who merely made a notation that the application be put up before the concerned authority. The High Court also erred in observing that the application made by respondent No. 10 had been received by the Chief Minister and bore his endorsement on 05.04.2005 to the effect please process and pass by 12.04.2004. We have perused the said document. The above endorsement is not written by the Chief Minister and in fact the said A B c D E F G H 102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 1 S.C.R. A application did not even reach the office of the Chief Minister at any point of time: B c D E F G H LAW ON THE SUBJECT: 22. We shall now analyze and consider the rulings of this Court cited by learned Solicitor General. l.' Dr. Dilip Kumar Deka & Anr. v. State of Assam & Anr., [1996] 6 sec 234 (paras 6, 7 & 8) The above judgment relates to expunging adverse remarks. The above was a case of adverse remarks recorded by the High Court against the members of hospital allegedly for misleading the court and stalling process of the court by submitting manipulated report regarding condition of a person to justify his shifting from police remand to the hospital. The High Court made adverse remarks without giving any opportunity to the members of extending or defending themselves, without any evidence showing that their conduct justified such remarks and without any necessity of such remarks for the purpose of deciding the matter. This Court held on facts that adverse remarks were unwarranted and hence expunged. This Court also cautioned superior courts to use temporate and moderate language and also held that opportunity to be given to the affected party before recording of adverse remarks by the Court. This Court also held thus: "6. The tests to be applied while dealing with the question of expunction of disparaging remarks against a person or authorities whose conduct comes in for consideration before a Court of law in cases to be decided by it were succinctly laid down by this Court in State of UP. v. Mohd Nairn, AIR 1964 SC 703. Those tests are: (a) Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and ( c) Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. )- STATE v. PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 103 The above tests have been quoted with approval and applied by A this Court in its subsequent judgments in Jage Ram v. Hans Raj Midha, [1972] 1 SCC 181, R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan, [1975] 2 SCC 466 andNiranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhusan Kar, [1986] 2 SCC569. 7. We are surprised to find that in spite of the above catena of B ' decisions of this Court, the learned Judge did not, before making A the remarks, give any opportunity to the appellants, who were admittedly not parties to the revision petition, to defend themselves. It cannot be gainsaid that the nature of remarks the learned Judge has made, has cast a serious aspersion on the ,appellants affecting c their character and reputation and may, ultimately affect their career also. Condemnation of the appellants without giving them an opportunity of being heard was a complete negation of the fundamental principle of natural justice. 8. Judged in the context of the first test laid down in Mohd Nairn 's D case (supra) the above discussion of ours is sufficient to quash the I impugned remarks, but we find that the remarks are vulnerable also to the second test laid down therein.