2021 INSC 0829
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1455­1456 OF 2021
STATE OF ODISHA      …Appellant
Versus
PRATIMA MOHANTY ETC.           …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Orissa
dated   04.09.2019   passed   in   Criminal   Miscellaneous
Application   No.3177   of   2017   and   Criminal   Miscellaneous
Application   No.4804   of   2015   by   which   the   High   Court   has
allowed   the   said   applications   under   Section   482   of   Cr.P.C.
and   has   quashed   the   criminal   proceedings   against   the
private respondents herein ­ original accused Nos. 4, 5 and
3 – Smt. Pratima Mohanty, Shri Prakash Chandra Patra and
1

Shri   Rajendra   Kumar   Samal,   the   State   of   Odisha   has
preferred the present appeals.
2. That an FIR was lodged by the Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Vigilance, Vigilance Cell Unit Office, Bhubaneswar
before the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Bhubaneswar
Division,   Bhubaneswar   alleging   inter   alia   that   on
preliminary   enquiry   it   was   found   that   certain   public
servants   occupying   crucial   positions   in   Bhubaneswar
Development   Authority   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘B.D.A.’)
and   in   the   Housing   and   Urban   Development   Department,
Government   of   Odisha   (hereinafter   referred   to   as,   ‘H.&U.D.
Deptt.’)   surreptitiously   distributed   prime   plots   in
Commercial   Complex   District   Centre,   Chandrasekharpur,
Bhubaneswar.     It   was   alleged   that   in   pursuance   of   the
criminal   conspiracy   and   by   abusing   their   official   positions,
the   officials   of   the   B.D.A.   and   of   the   H.&U.D.   Deptt.,
Government   of   Odisha,   surreptitiously   distributed   prime
plots.   That at the relevant time the original accused No.4 ­
Smt.   Pratima   Mohanty   was   serving   as   Steno   to   Vice­
Chairman,   B.D.A.     Original   accused   No.5   ­   Shri   Prakash
Chandra   Patra   was   serving   as   Jr.   Assistant   Allotment
2

Section,   B.D.A   and   original   accused   No.3   ­   Shri   Rajender
Kumar Samal was the Dealing Assistant, Allotment Section
­ II, B.D.A. and Personal Assistant to Minister, Housing and
Urban Development (original accused No.6).  Apart from the
criminal conspiracy raised by all the accused persons it was
further alleged that there was no advertisement in providing
opportunity to general public regarding availability of B.D.A.
plots   for   sale   and   their   sale   prices.     It   was   alleged   that
keeping   the   general   public   in   dark,   the   public   servants   in
B.D.A.   (accused)   who   had   access   to   such   information   as
insiders,   distributed   the   prime   plots   among   themselves   or
their relatives and that too at minimal rates as compared to
the   prevalent   rates   in   the   area   and   thereby   causing   undue
pecuniary advantage to the allottees and corresponding loss
to   the   B.D.A.   and   the   public   exchequer   without   any   public
interest.
2.1 It was further alleged that the wrongful loss caused to
the   B.D.A.   was   to   the   tune   of   Rs.30,27,849.80   and
Rs.71,57,055.00.     Therefore,   it   was   alleged   that   all   the
accused persons have committed the offences under Section
120B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
3

Prevention   of   Corruption   Act,   1988   (hereinafter   referred   to
as   ‘the   Act’).     The   FIR   was   numbered   as   PS   Case   No.31   of
2005.     Since   all   the   accused   persons   were   Government
servants   working   in   B.D.A.,   Bhubaneswar,   sanction   orders
for   prosecution   were   obtained.     After   conclusion   of   the
investigation, the investigating agency filed the charge­sheet
against   all   the   accused   persons   along   with   the   then
Minister,   H.&U.D.   Deptt.   on   the   accusation   that   they   had
entered   into   criminal   conspiracy   and   committed   criminal
misconduct by abusing their official position showing undue
official favour to their relatives and allowed illegal pecuniary
advantage to the allottees in allotting 10 plots.   As a result,
B.D.A. sustained huge loss and thereby making the accused
liable for the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section
13(1)(d) of the Act and Section 420 read with Section 120B
IPC.   Five accused namely Shri   Bibhuti Bhushan Ray, Shri
Parsuram   Biswal,   Smt.   Pratima   Mohanty,   Shri   Rajendra
Kumar Samal and Shri Prakash Chandra Patra approached
the   High   Court   by   way   of   Criminal   Miscellaneous
Applications   Nos. 3177   of   2017   and   4804   of   2015   and
4

prayed   to   quash   the   criminal   proceedings   against   them   in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2.2 By   impugned   common   judgment   and   order   the   High
Court has partly allowed the aforesaid applications and has
quashed   the   criminal   proceedings   against   Smt.   Pratima
Mohanty   (original   accused   No.4),   Shri   Prakash   Chandra
Patra   (original   accused   No.5)   and   Shri   Rajendra   Kumar
Samal (original accused No.3) mainly on the ground that the
said   accused   have   not   dealt   with   the   allotment   file   in   any
manner  and there is no material that any  of these accused
had   influenced   any   co­accused   or   any   officer   of   B.D.A.   or
H.&U.D.   Deptt.   for   getting   the   plots   illegally   in   favour   of
their   family   members.     It   was   also   further   observed   that
there is no material on record that these accused acted with
a   pre­concert   mind   and   they   were   in   criminal   conspiracy
with the other co­accused to get the vacant plots.
2.3 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
quashing   the   criminal   proceedings   against   the   private
respondents herein ­ original accused Nos.4, 5 and 3 for the
5

offences   under   Section   13(2)   read   with   Section   13(1)(d)   of
the   Act   and   Section   420   read   with   Section   120B   IPC,   the
State has preferred the present appeals.
3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant –
State has vehemently submitted that in the present case the
High Court has erred in quashing  the criminal proceedings
for the offences under Section   13(2) read with Section 13(1)
(d) of the Act and Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3.1 It   is   submitted   that   while   quashing   the   criminal
proceedings   against   the   respondents   –   accused   the   High
Court   has   exceeded   its   jurisdiction   vested   under   Section
482 Cr.P.C.
3.2. It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   has   not   at   all
appreciated   and   considered   the   fact   that   at   the   stage   of
considering   the   application   under   Section   482   Cr.P.C.,   the
minute details of the case are not required to be gone into at
all.     It   is   submitted   that   in   the   present   case   it   was   found
that the allotment of the 10 plots were made by the accused
in connivance with each other arbitrarily and the plots were
6

allotted to the relatives of the accused – public servants.   It
is   submitted   that   no   advertisement   was   issued   by   the
B.D.A.  inviting   the  applications  from   intending   purchasers.
The   accused   –   officers   deliberately   concealed   the   matter
from the general public and thus avoided competition.   It is
submitted   that   it   was   found   that   on   the   undated
applications   the   plots   were   allotted   to   the   relatives   of   the
accused   herein   and   public   servants.     It   is   submitted   that
therefore,   the   First   Information   Report   was   filed   by   the
Vigilance Cell against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
It is submitted that after a thorough investigation a charge­
sheet   has   been   filed   before   the   learned   Special   Judge
(Vigilance), Bhubaneswar.  It is submitted that having found
prima   facie   case   and   being   satisfied   that   a   case   for   the
offences   under   Section   13(2)   read   with   Section   13(1)(d)   of
the   Act   and   Section   420   read   with   Section   120B   IPC   was
made   out,   the   learned   Special   Judge   (Vigilance),
Bhubaneswar   has   taken   cognizance.     It   is   submitted
therefore   the   High   Court   ought   not   to   have   exercised   the
powers   under   Section   482   Cr.P.C.   and   not   ought   to   have
quashed the criminal proceedings.
7

3.3 It   is   submitted   that   as   such   the   High   Court   quashed
the   criminal   proceedings   by   scrutinising   the   FIR/material
on   record   in   detail   as   if   the   High   Court   was   conducting   a
mini trial which is not permissible at the stage of exercising
the   powers  under   Section   482  Cr.P.C.     It  is  submitted  that
the   aforesaid   approach   is   wholly   impermissible   as   per   the
law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions.
3.4 It   is   further   submitted   that   even   otherwise   while
quashing   the   criminal   proceedings   the   High   Court   has   not
at all appreciated and considered the fact that the allegation
was   of   hatching   a   criminal   conspiracy   by   the   public
servants who  all were connected  one  way  or  the  other  with
allotment   of   the   plots   in   the   discretionary   quota   and   that
the   allegations   were   for   the   offences   under   Section   120B
IPC.     It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court   by   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   has   quashed   the   criminal   proceedings
mainly   by   observing   that   the   respondents   ­   accused   have
not   dealt   with   the   allotment   file   in   any   manner   and   that
there   is   no   material   that   any   of   the   respondents   ­   accused
herein influenced any co­accused or any officer of B.D.A. or
8

H.&U.D.   Deptt.   for   getting   the   plots   illegally   in   favour   of
their   family   members.     It   is   submitted   that   the   aforesaid
aspects   are   required   to   be   considered,   established   and
proved at the time of trial.  It is submitted that only a prima
facie case is required to be considered at this stage and it is
to  be considered whether  any  prima facie case is made out
for   the   offences   alleged   or   not.     It   is   submitted   that   in   the
present case there are specific allegations of favouritism and
misusing   the   powers   in   allotting   the   plots   to   the   family
members   and   that   a   huge   loss   has   been   caused   to   the
B.D.A.   and   the   public   exchequer.     It   is   specifically   alleged
that   relatives   of   the   respondents   –   accused   and   other   co­
accused   public   servants,   pursuant   to   a   conspiracy,
submitted   applications   on   plain   papers   (not   in   the   form
prescribed   in   the   brochure)   and   even   some   of   the
applications were undated.   It is submitted that it has been
found   that   the   allotment   of   the   10   plots   were   made
arbitrarily   and   the   respondents   –   accused   got   the   plots
allotted   to   the   family   members   at   throw   away   prices.     It   is
urged   that   the   High   Court   has   erred   in   quashing   the
criminal  proceedings  against  the  respondents ­  accused for
9

the serious allegations of corruption while allotting 10 plots
arbitrarily to their family members by hatching the criminal
conspiracy.
4. Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respondents   –   original   accused   Nos.   4,   5   and   3   has
vehemently   submitted   that   in   the   facts   and   circumstances
of   the   case   and   having   found   that   (i)   the   respondents   ­
accused   have   no   role   in   the   fixation   of   price   of   10   vacant
plots; (ii) the respondents – accused have not dealt with the
allotment   file   in   any   manner;   (iii)   there   is   no   material   that
any  of  the   three  accused  influenced  any   co­accused  or  any
officer   of   B.D.A.   or   H.&U.D.   Deptt.   for   getting   the   plots
illegally   in   favour   of   their   family   members,   the   High   Court
has rightly quashed the criminal proceedings against them.
It is submitted that having observed so the High Court has
rightly   quashed   the   criminal   proceedings   against   the
respondents   –   accused   in   exercise   of   its   powers   under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.
4.1 It is submitted that the High Court on appreciation of
the   material   on   record   which   was   part   of   the   charge­sheet
10

has   quashed   the   criminal   proceedings   and   therefore   the
same may not be interfered with by this Court.
5. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   respective
parties at length.
6. At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   by   the
impugned judgment and order the High Court in exercise of
its   powers   under   Section   482   Cr.P.C.   has   quashed   the
criminal   proceedings   for   the   offences   under   Section   13(2)
read   with   Section   13(1)(d)   of   the   Act   and   Section   420   read
with Section  120B  IPC.   From  the  impugned judgment and
order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   it   appears   that   the   High
Court has entered into the merits of the allegations and has
conducted   the   mini­trial   by   weighing   the   evidence   in   detail
which,   as   such,   as   observed   and   held   by   this   Court   in   a
catena of decisions is wholly impermissible.  As held by this
Court   in   the   case   of   State   of   Haryana   And   Ors.   vs   Ch.
Bhajan  Lal   And   Ors.,   AIR 1992 SC  604,   the powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised either to prevent an
abuse   of   process   of   any   court   and/or   otherwise   to   secure
the   ends   of   justice.     In   the   said   decision   this   Court   had
11

carved out  the exceptions  to the general  rule that  normally
in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the criminal
proceedings/FIR should not be quashed.   Exceptions to the
above general rule are carved out in para 102 in  Bhajan Lal
(supra) which reads as under:
“102.  In  the  backdrop  of  the  interpretation  of
the     various   relevant     provisions     of     the     Code
under     Chapter     XIV     and     of     the   principles     of
law   enunciated   by   this   Court   in   a   series   of
decisions     relating     to     the     exercise     of     the
extraordinary   power under   Article   226   or   the
inherent     powers     under     Section     482     of   the
Code     which     we     have     extracted     and
reproduced     above,     we   give     the     following
categories     of     cases     by     way     of     illustration
wherein  such  power  could  be  exercised  either
to  prevent abuse  of  the  process  of  any  court
or     otherwise     to     secure     the   ends     of     justice,
though   it   may   not   be   possible   to   lay   down
any   precise,     clearly     defined     and     sufficiently
channelized     and   inflexible     guidelines     or     rigid
formulae     and     to     give     an   exhaustive     list     of
myriad     kinds     of     cases     wherein     such     power
should  be  exercised. 
(1)     Where   the   allegations   made   in   the   first
information   report   or   the   complaint,   even   if   they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused. 
(2)   Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the   FIR   do   not   disclose   a   cognizable   offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
12

of   a   Magistrate   within   the   purview   of   Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3)     Where   the   uncontroverted   allegations   made
in   the   FIR   or   complaint   and   the   evidence
collected   in   support   of   the   same   do   not   disclose
the   commission   of   any   offence   and   make   out   a
case against the accused. 
(4)     Where,   the   allegations   in   the   FIR   do   not
constitute   a   cognizable   offence   but   constitute
only   a   non­cognizable   42   PART   E   offence,   no
investigation   is   permitted   by   a   police   officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated
under Section 155(2) of the Code. 
(5)     Where   the   allegations   made   in   the   FIR   or
complaint   are   so   absurd   and   inherently
improbable   on   the   basis   of   which   no   prudent
person   can   ever   reach   a   just   conclusion   that
there   is   sufficient   ground   for   proceeding   against
the accused. 
(6)  Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in   any   of   the   provisions   of   the   Code   or   the
concerned   Act   (under   which   a   criminal
proceeding   is   instituted)   to   the   institution   and
continuance   of   the   proceedings   and/or   where
there   is   a   specific   provision   in   the   Code   or   the
concerned   Act,   providing   efficacious   redress   for
the grievance of the aggrieved party. 
(7)     Where   a   criminal   proceeding   is   manifestly
attended   with   mala   fide   and/or   where   the
proceeding   is   maliciously   instituted   with   an
ulterior   motive   for   wreaking   vengeance   on   the
accused   and   with   a   view   to   spite   him   due   to
private and personal grudge.”
13

6.1 Looking   to   the   allegations   in   the   present   case   against
the   respondents   –   accused   and   considering   the   fact   that
charge­sheet   has   been   filed   by   the   Vigilance   Cell   after   a
thorough investigation, it cannot be said that the case falls
within any of the exceptions as carved out by this Court in
para   102   in   the   case   of   Bhajan   Lal   (supra).     It   cannot   be
said   that   the   criminal   proceedings   initiated   against   the
respondents – accused are an abuse of process of any court.
On the contrary, the allegations are an instance of abuse of
the   powers   with   a   mala   fide   intention   and   allotment   of   the
plots   to   the   family   members   by   hatching   a   criminal
conspiracy   and   to   allot   the   plots   to   the   family   members   at
throw away price causing loss to the B.D.A. and the public
exchequer.  
6.2 It   is   trite   that   the   power   of   quashing   should   be
exercised   sparingly   and   with   circumspection   and   in   rare
cases.  As per settled proposition of law while examining an
FIR/complaint   quashing   of   which   is   sought,   the   court
cannot   embark   upon   any   enquiry   as   to   the   reliability   or
genuineness   of   allegations   made   in   the   FIR/complaint.
14

Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather
than any  ordinary  rule.   Normally  the criminal proceedings
should not be quashed in exercise of powers under  Section
482 Cr.P.C. when after a thorough investigation the charge­
sheet   has   been   filed.     At   the   stage   of   discharge   and/or
considering   the   application   under   Section   482   Cr.P.C.   the
courts   are   not   required   to   go   into   the   merits   of   the
allegations   and/or   evidence   in   detail   as   if   conducing   the
mini­trial.   As held by this Court the powers under Section
482   Cr.P.C.   is   very   wide,   but   conferment   of   wide   power
requires the court to be more cautious.  It casts an onerous
and more diligent duty on the Court.  
6.3 In the present case the allegations were with respect to
allotment   of   10   plots   which   were   required   to   be   allotted
under   the   discretionary   quota.     It   is   not   in   dispute   that   at
the relevant time the respondents – accused were connected
with  the  Department   concerned  with  regard to   allotment  of
the plots directly or indirectly.  Accused No.4 ­ Smt. Pratima
Mohanty was serving as Steno to Vice­Chairman, B.D.A.  As
per   the   case   of   the   prosecution   an   undated   application   for
allotment   of   plots   on   plain   paper   was   received   from   Shri
15

Pradyumna Kumar Mohanty, brother  of the accused ­ Smt.
Pratima   Mohanty.     It   is   also   the   case   on   behalf   of   the
prosecution that though the plot was applied in the name of
her   brother,   after   the   allotment   of   the   plot   she   is   in
possession   of   the   same.     So   far   as   accused   No.5   –   Shri
Prakash   Chandra   Patra   is   concerned,   as   per   the   case   on
behalf of the prosecution, an application on plain paper for
allotment of plot of Ms. Rajalaxmi Samal, sister­in­law of the
respondent   –   Shri   Prakash   Chandra   Patra   (accused   No.5)
was   forwarded   by   the   Minister   of   Housing   Urban
Development   –   Mr.   Samer   Dey   (accused   No.6)   to   Shri   P.K.
Pattanaik, Secretary, B.D.A.   It is noted that at the relevant
time   the   said   accused   was   working   as   Jr.   Assistant,
Allotment   Section,   B.D.A.     Pursuant   to   the   aforesaid
application   the   sister­in­law   of   the   said   accused   has   been
allotted   a   plot.     So   far   as   accused   No.3   ­   Rajendra   Kumar
Samal is concerned, as per the case of the prosecution and
as alleged, an application was made for allotment of plot in
favour   of   his   wife   who   was   Dealing   Assistant,   Allotment
Section   II,   B.D.A.   and   Personal   Assistant   to   Minister,
Housing and Urban Development.   It is noted that even the
16

then   Minister   is   the   original   accused   No.6.     As   per   the
allegation the  application  was  without  any  date and on the
basis of such undated application, the plot has been allotted
in favour of his wife. 
7. Therefore,   considering   the   aforesaid   it   cannot   be   said
that   the   criminal   proceedings   against   the   respondents   –
accused were in any way an abuse of process of law and/or
the   Court.     The   allegations   against   the   respondents   –
accused   are   very   serious   including   hatching   a   criminal
conspiracy   in   allotment   of   10   plots   in   the   discretionary
quota arbitrarily and to their own family members/relatives.
There   are   specific   allegations   with   respect   to   huge   loss
caused to the B.D.A and the public exchequer, as according
to   the   prosecution   the   plots   were   allotted   at   throw   away
prices.     All   these   aspects   are   required   to   be   considered   at
the   stage   of   trial   and   not   while   considering   the   application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. At this stage, the decision of the Karnataka High Court
in   the   case   of   K.   Raju   vs.   Bangalore   Development
Authority   in   Writ   Petition   No.11102   of   2008   decided   on
17

15.12.2010  dealing   with   a   somewhat   similar   situation   with
respect   to   the   allotment   of   plots   in   discretionary   quota   is
required to be referred to.  In that case also it was a case of
allotment   of   the   plots   illegally   and   arbitrarily   in   the
discretionary   quota.     Speaking   from   the   Bench   Justice   S.
Abdul  Nazeer,  J.  as he   then  was  has  observed  and   held as
under:
“It   is   well   established   that   a   public   body
invested   with   statutory   powers   has   to   take   care
not   to   exceed   or   abuse   its   powers.     It   must   act
within the limits of authority committed to it.”
“31.   BDA   is   the   custodian   of   public
properties.   It   is   not   as   free   as   an   individual   in
selecting   the   recipients   for   its   largess.   For
allotment   of   the   properties,   a   transparent,   and
objective   criteria/procedure   has   to   be   evolved
based on reason, fair play and non­arbitrariness.
In   such   action,   public   interest   has   to   be   the
prime   guiding   consideration.   In   Ramana
Dayaram   Shetty   v.   The   International   Airport
Authority   of   India,   AIR   1979   SC   1628,   the   Apex
Court has held that it must therefore be taken to
be   the   law   that   even   in   the   matter   of   grant   of
largesses   including   award   of   jobs,   contracts,
quotas, licences, the Government must act in fair
and just manner and any arbitrary distribution of
wealth would violate the law of land. In Common
Cause,   A   Registered   Society   v.   Union   of   India,
(1996)   6   SCC   530,   the   Apex   Court   has   held   as
under 
The   Government   today   ­   in   a   welfare   State
­provides large number of benefits to the citizens.
It   distributes   wealth   in   the   form   of   allotment   of
18

plots,   houses,   petrol   pumps,   gas   agencies,
mineral   leases   in   contracts,   quotas   and   licences
etc., Government distributes largesses in various
forms. A Minister who is the executive head of the
department   concerned   distributes   these   benefits
and largesses. He is elected by the people and is
elevated   to   a   position   where   he   holds   a   trust   on
behalf   of   the   people.   He   has   to   deal   with   the
people's   property   in   a   fair   and   just   manner.   He
cannot commit breach of the trust reposed in him
by   the   people   In   Onkar   Lal   Bajaj   and   Ors.   v.
Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 673, the Apex Court
has   summarised   the   cardinal   principles   of
governance, which is as follows: 
35.   The   expression   "public
interest"   or   "probity   in   governance"
cannot be put in a straitjacket. "Public
interest"   takes   into   its   fold   several
factors. There cannot be any hard­and­
fast   rule   to   determine   what   is   public
interest.   The   circumstances   in   each
case   would   determine   whether
government action was taken in public
interest  or   02­12­2021   (Page   14   of  23)
www.manupatra.com   Hon'ble   Mr.
Justice   M.R.   Shah   was   taken   to
uphold probity in governance. 
36.  The role model for governance
and   decision   taken   thereof   should
manifest   equity,   fair   play   and   justice.
The cardinal principle of governance in
a civilized society  based on rule of law
not   only   has   to   base   a   transparency
but must create an impression that the
decision   making   was   motivated   on   the
consideration   of   probity.   The
Government   has   to   rise   above   the
nexus of vested interests and nepotism
and   eschew   window­dressing.   The   act
19

of  governance   has  to   be   withstand   the
test   of   judiciousness   and   impartiality
and   avoid   arbitrary   or   capricious
actions.   Therefore,   the   principles   of
governance   has   to   be   tested   on   the
touchstone   of   justice,   equity   and   fair
play and if the decision is not based on
justice,   equity   and   fair   play   and   has
taken into consideration other matters,
though   on   the   face   of   it,   the   decision
may  look legitimate but as a matter  of
fact,   the   reasons   are   not   based   on
values but to achieve popular accolade,
that   decision   cannot   be   allowed   to
operate.”
8.1 It   is   further   observed   after   referring   to   the   decision   of
this   Court   in   the   case   of   Common   Cause,   A   Registered
Society   (supra)   that   if   a   public   servant   abuses   his   office
whether   by   his   act   of   omission   or   commission,   and   the
consequence   of   that   is   injury   to   an   individual   or   loss   of
public property, an action may be maintained against such
public servant.  It is further observed that no public servant
can   arrogate   to   himself   powers   in   a   manner   which   is
arbitrary.   In this regard we wish to recall the observations
of this Court as under:
“The   concept   of   public   accountability   and
performance   of   functions   takes   in   its   ambit,
proper and timely action in accordance with law.
Public   duty   and   public   obligation   both   are
20

essentials  of good  administration  whether   by  the
State or its instrumentalities.” [See  Delhi Airtech
Services   (P)   Ltd.   Vs.   State   of   U.P.,   (2011)   9
SCC 354 ] 
“The   higher   the   public   office   held   by   a
person the greater is the demand for rectitude on
his   part.”     [See   Charanjit   Lamba   Vs.   Army
Southern Command, (2010) 11 SCC 314 ]
“The   holder   of   every   public   office   holds   a
trust   for   public   good   and   therefore   his   actions
should   all   be   above   board.”   [See   Padma   Vs.
Hiralal Motilal Desarda, (2002) 7 SCC 564 ]
“Every   holder   of   a   public   office   by   virtue   of
which   he   acts   on   behalf   of   the   State   or   public
body   is   ultimately   accountable   to   the   people   in
whom   the   sovereignty   vests.   As   such,   all   powers
so   vested   in   him   are   meant   to   be   exercised   for
public   good   and   promoting   the   public   interest.
This is equally true of all actions even in the field
of contract. Thus, every holder of a public office is
a   trustee   whose   highest   duty   is   to   the   people   of
the country and, therefore, every act of the holder
of   a   public   office,   irrespective   of   the   label
classifying that act, is in discharge of public duty
meant ultimately for public good.” [See  Shrilekha
Vidyarthi   (Kumari)   Vs.   State   of   U.P.,   (1991)   1
SCC 212 ]
“Public authorities should realise that in an
era   of   transparency,   previous   practices   of
unwarranted   secrecy   have   no   longer   a   place.
Accountability   and   prevention   of   corruption   is
possible   only   through   transparency.”   [See   ICAI
Vs. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781 ] 
21

Therefore,   action   has   to   be   initiated   against   the
officials who are prima facie responsible for  the illegality  in
the   allotment   of   the   plots   to   the   relatives   and/or   family
members resulting in huge loss to the B.D.A. and the public
exchequer.
9. While   quashing   the   criminal   proceedings   the   High
Court has not at all adverted to  itself the  aforesaid aspects
and has embarked upon an enquiry as to the reliability and
genuineness   of   the   evidence   collected   during   the
investigation as if the High Court was conducting the mini­
trial.   Therefore, as such the impugned judgment and order
passed   by   the   High   Court   quashing   the   criminal
proceedings   against   the   respondents   herein   ­   original
accused   Nos.   4,   5   and   3   –   Smt.   Pratima   Mohanty,   Shri
Prakash Chandra Patra and Shri Rajendra Kumar Samal is
unsustainable,   both,   in   law   and/or   facts   and   the   same
deserves to be quashed and set aside.
10. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above
present appeals succeed.  Impugned common judgment and
order passed by the High Court dated 04.09.2019 passed in
22

Criminal   Miscellaneous   Application   No.3177   of   2017   and
Criminal   Miscellaneous   Application   No.4804   of   2015   are
hereby   quashed   and   set   aside   in   so   far   as   quashing   the
criminal  proceedings against  original  Accused Nos.4, 5 & 3
is concerned.
Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 3 to face trial along with other
co­accused.  
Present Appeals are accordingly allowed.
11. Before   parting   we   may   observe   that   now   the   day   has
come   to   do   away   with   allotment   of   government   largess   on
the   basis   of   discretionary   quota   as   this   inevitably   leads   to
corruption, nepotism and favouritism.   Government and/or
the public authorities like B.D.A. are the custodian of public
properties.   Allotment   of   public   properties   must   be
transparent   and   has   to   be   fair   and   non­arbitrary.     In   such
matters   public   interest   only   has   to   be   the   prime   guiding
consideration.   The aforesaid principle is in order to get the
best   or   maximum   price   so   that   it   may   serve   the   public
purpose   and   public   interest   so   as   to   avoid   loss   to   the
authority   and/or   the   public   exchequer.     The   allotment   of
plots   in   the   discretionary   quota   cannot   be   at   the   whims   of
23

the   persons   in   power   and/or   the   public   servants   who   are
dealing   with   the   allotment   of   plots   in   the   discretionary
quota.
When   a   democratic   government   in   exercise   of   its
discretion   selects   the   recipients   for   its   largess,   then
discretion   should   be   exercised   objectively,   rationally,
intelligibly,   fairly   and   in   a   non­arbitrary   manner   and   it
should   not   be   subjective   and   according   to   the   private
opinion   and/or   the   whims   and   fancies   of   the   persons   in
power   and/or   the   public   servants.     Even   if   guidelines   are
issued to be followed while allotment of the plots under the
discretionary   quota   and   it   is   found   that   many   a   time   they
are hardly followed or are manipulated to suit the particular
circumstances.  Therefore, the best thing is to do away with
such   discretionary   quota   and   allotments   of   the   public
properties/plots   must   be   through   public   auction   by   and
large.  Even in the case where the policy decision is taken to
allot the plots to a particular class – downtrodden class etc.
in that case also the guidelines must be strictly followed and
as  observed  hereinabove  the  allotment   must  reflect  the   fair
24

play   and   non­arbitrariness   and   should   have   objective,
criteria/procedure.
……………………………….J.
              [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI;    ……………………………….J.
DECEMBER 11, 2021.          [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
25