REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5779  OF 2008

Bihar State Housing Board & Ors.              .... Appellant (s)

Versus

Asha Lata Verma     .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) This  appeal  is  directed against  the final  judgment  and  

order  dated  02.07.2008  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature at Patna in L.P.A.  No.  211 of  2008 whereby the  

Division Bench of the High Court declined to interfere with the  

order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the learned single Judge of  

the High Court in CWJC No. 11753 of 2007 and disposed of  

the appeal filed by the appellants herein.

2) Brief facts:

1

(a) In  1972,  the  Bihar  State  Housing  Board  (hereinafter  

referred to as “the Board”) floated a Scheme for construction of  

Flats for Middle Income Group (in short “MIG”) at Hanuman  

Nagar, Patna.    Ram Chandra Prasad  Verma (since expired)  

-the  husband  of  the  respondent  submitted  his  application.  

Subsequently,  on  demand  being  made,  on  28.09.1978,  he  

deposited  a  sum  of  Rs.6500/-  for  allotment  of  a  MIG  

flat/house.  The allotment fructified in his favour and MIG Flat  

No.  171,  Hanuman  Nagar,  Patna  was  allotted  to  him  vide  

Board’s Order No. 7273 dated 23.09.1981.  After execution of  

hire-purchase agreement, the possession was handed over to  

him on 28.11.1981.   At that time,  the total  cost of  the flat  

determined by the Board was Rs.66,382/-.  The entire amount  

was paid to the Board within the time prescribed.   

(b)     On 25.03.1991, the husband of the respondent died and  

in the year 1992, she sought for transfer of the Flat in her  

name.  The flat was transferred in the name of the respondent  

after  furnishing  the  details  of  payment  and  other  required  

documents  to  the  Board  vide  letter  No.  1459  dated  

05.05.1998.   

2

(c) Later on, the respondent decided to transfer the flat in  

favour of her daughter-in-law, Ms. Meera Verma and sought  

transfer of the same.  At this time, the Board raised a demand  

of Rs. 3,64,419/- towards outstanding dues against the flat in  

question vide Letter  No. 2169 dated 29.06.2006, asking the  

respondent to deposit the same by 31.07.2006.   

(d) Against the said demand notice, the respondent filed writ  

petition  bearing  CWJC No.  11753  of  2007  before  the  High  

Court of Patna for quashing the same on the ground that the  

payment  of  the  flat  had  already  been  made  in  144  equal  

instalments and that the Board is not justified in raising such  

demand and not entitled to re-determination/re-fixation of the  

price after delivery of possession.  The learned single Judge, by  

order dated 07.02.2008, allowed the writ petition and quashed  

the demand notice and directed the Board to grant permission  

for transfer of the flat in favour of Ms. Meera Verma, daughter-

in-law of the respondent herein.  The learned single Judge also  

directed the Additional Director General of Vigilance, State of  

Bihar to institute a case against the Board and to enquire into  

the activities of the officials involved in the process of decision  

3

making  and  also  to  initiate  enquiry  into  the  assets  and  

properties of such officials of the Board.   

(e) Against the said order of the learned single Judge, the  

Board filed  appeal  being L.P.A.  No.  211 of  2008 before  the  

Division Bench of  the  High Court.   The  Division Bench, by  

impugned order dated 02.07.2008, declined to interfere with  

the order passed by the learned single Judge disposed of the  

appeal filed by the appellants herein.  Aggrieved by the same,  

the Board preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition  

before this Court.

3) Heard Mr. S. Chandra Shekhar, learned counsel for the  

appellants-Board and Mr. Praneet Ranjan, learned counsel for  

the respondent.

4) Since the learned single Judge of the High Court while  

allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent expressed his  

anguish over the manner in which the Board and its officials  

are  conducting  its  affairs,  issued  certain  directions  for  

Vigilance  inquiry,  the  Board  being  aggrieved  by  the  said  

directions  filed  an  appeal  before  the  Division  Bench.  The  

4

Division Bench,  by impugned order  dated  02.07.2008,  after  

observing  that  since  the  Vigilance  Department  has  already  

started preliminary inquiry, declined to interfere with the order  

passed by the learned single Judge.  The Board is very much  

aggrieved  by  the  directions  of  the  learned  single  Judge  

directing  Additional  Director  General  of  Vigilance,  State  of  

Bihar to institute a case against the Board and to enquire into  

the activities of all persons who are involved in the decision  

making  process  as  well  as  who  have  been  responsible  in  

creating false accounts and raising false demands in relation  

to the writ petitioner, namely, Asha Lata Verma.  In the same  

order, the learned single Judge also directed that an inquiry  

into the assets and properties of such officials of the Board be  

carried out to see whether they have been benefited at the cost  

of innocent citizens.   

5) Before  considering  the  directions  of  the  learned  single  

Judge  asking  the  Additional  Director  General  of  Vigilance,  

State of Bihar to enquire into the conduct of the officials of the  

Board, we have to see the grievance of the respondent.  The  

5

grievance of the respondent is that even though entire money  

for MIG flat bought by her husband in the year 1981 was paid  

yet the officials of the Board acting in most arbitrary manner  

have  raised  huge  demand.   By  various  orders  of  the  High  

Court, ultimately the Board transferred the ownership of the  

flat in question in favour of daughter-in-law of the respondent.  

Though the counsel appearing for the Board has stated that  

the Board was justified in demanding an additional amount, in  

the absence of such details and in view of the fact that now  

the Board has transferred the title of the flat in favour of the  

daughter-in-law of the respondent, as requested, we are not  

inclined to go into the claim of the Board.   

6) Let  us  consider  the  directions  issued  by  the  learned  

single Judge in the foregoing paragraphs. The learned single  

Judge having noticed that the cost of the flat as determined by  

the  Board  was  paid  by  the  allotee,  after  the  death  of  the  

original  allottee,  his  wife  –  respondent  herein  applied  for  

transferring  the  flat  in  her  name,  at  this  stage,  the  Board  

officials required her to furnish proof of payments and other  

documents  which  were  duly  furnished  by  her,  thereafter  

6

permission was granted for transfer of the flat in her name,  

ultimately,  on a  request  being  made  by  the  respondent  for  

transferring the said flat in the name of her daughter-in-law,  

the officials of the Board calculated huge amount showing as  

outstanding  and  with  this  background,  the  learned  single  

Judge  examined  the  claim  of  the  writ  petitioner  and  

considered the stand of the Board.  It is the grievance of the  

Board  that  whether  in  a  writ  proceeding  where  the  writ  

petitioner challenged the demand notice issued by the Board,  

the writ Court could have gone beyond the relief sought by the  

petitioner and ordered an inquiry by the Vigilance Department  

after registering FIR?  It is also the grievance of the Board that  

whether in a writ proceeding, the learned single Judge could  

have  ordered  registration  of  FIR  without  there  being  an  

allegation of any offence committed by anyone and whether in  

the absence of any specific allegation, the learned single Judge  

is justified in ordering a roving inquiry?   

7

7) The learned single Judge took note of many findings and  

observations of the High Court in several similar cases.  It is  

important to mention here that the learned single Judge while  

passing  the  order  dated  07.02.2008  placed  reliance  on  the  

following judgments,  viz.,  Smt.  Meera Mishra  vs. State of  

Bihar 2001  (3)  PLJR  809,  Sanjeev  Kumar  Singh  vs.  

Managing  Director 2003  (2)  PLJR  513  and  Sita  Devi  vs.  

Bihar  State  Housing  Board 2007  (1)  PLJR  246.   It  was  

pointed  out  that  these  matters  were  either  set  aside  or  

modified  or  not  applicable  to  the  case  on  hand.   In  those  

observations,  the High Court  has indicted the  Board for  its  

mismanaged  affairs  and  the  manner  in  which  it  was  

conducting  its  functioning.   Heavily  relying  on  those  

observations and findings, the learned single Judge held that  

the  demand notice  was  totally  unjustified  and,  therefore,  it  

was quashed and the Board was directed to issue permission  

to the writ petitioner for transfer of the flat in favour of her  

daughter-in-law.  Having noticed the conduct of the Board, the  

learned  single  Judge  felt  that  its  functionaries  should  be  

subjected  to  an  investigation  by  the  State  Vigilance  and  

8

accordingly a direction was issued to the Additional Director  

General of Vigilance, State of Bihar to institute a case against  

the Board and inquire into the activities of all  persons who  

were involved in the decision making process as well as who  

have been responsible in creating false accounts and raising  

false  demands.   The  learned  single  Judge  also  directed  to  

enquire into the assets and properties of such officials of the  

Board.   

8) It  is  seen  from  the  additional  documents  filed  by  the  

Board that based on the direction of the learned single Judge,  

Additional Director General Vigilance had sought opinion from  

the  Advocate  General.   By  letter  dated  19.07.2008,  after  

verifying the relief sought for by the writ petitioner and after  

analyzing the directions of the learned single Judge and the  

materials  placed  by  the  investigation  team,  the  Advocate  

General has opined that the materials, which are collected so  

far  during preliminary inquiry  and placed on record do not  

constitute any prima facie criminal offence against the officials  

of  the Board so as to warrant institution of a regular case.  

The said report was placed before the learned single Judge by  

9

the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, on 03.05.2010.  After  

going through the report of the Vigilance Department and the  

opinion  of  the  Advocate  General,  the  learned  single  Judge  

directed the Vigilance Department to spend more time on the  

investigation and file a report on the issue since the earlier  

report was not up to the expectation of the Court.

9) It is not in dispute that even as early as on 07.02.2008,  

the  learned  single  Judge  disposed  of  the  writ  petition  by  

allowing the same and granted relief  to the respondent and  

ordered  for  Vigilance  inquiry  against  the  Board  and  its  

officials.  Thereafter, even though the L.P.A. filed by the Board  

against  the  order  of  the  learned  single  Judge  was  also  

disposed  of  by  the  Division  Bench,  it  is  not  clear  and  

understandable  how  the  matter  was  heard  by  the  learned  

single Judge then and there. Even after perusing the report of  

the Vigilance Department based on the opinion of the Advocate  

General,  the  learned  single  Judge  passed  further  order  on  

03.05.2010 and again  directed  the  Vigilance  Department  to  

submit further report.  It is the grievance of the Board that  

inasmuch as the writ  petitioner has secured an appropriate  

10

relief  and  in  the  absence  of  any  specific  claim/complaint  

furnished with required details, the learned single Judge was  

not justified in directing the Vigilance Department for roving  

inquiry into the affairs of the Board.  

10) It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  only  question  before  the  

learned single Judge was related to the demand notice issued  

by  the  Board.   No  doubt,  the  petitioner  therein  has  made  

certain statements against the officials of the Board, however,  

there is no specific complaint either by the writ petitioner or  

anyone pointing mismanagement in the affairs of the Board.  If  

there  is  any  specific  complaint  giving  all  the  details,  

undoubtedly, the Court can forward it to the forum concerned  

for investigation and further action pursuant to the outcome of  

the same.  Merely on the basis of certain observations in the  

orders of the High Court in other matters which were either  

set aside or modified or not applicable to the case on hand, the  

learned single Judge was not justified in issuing directions for  

Vigilance inquiry.  The direction also proceeds as if that the  

officials of the Board benefited with the huge amount without  

basing  reliable  and  acceptable  materials.   Normally,  the  

11

function of the Court is to sort out the dispute raised and only  

in  exceptional  cases  that  too  when  adequate  materials  are  

there such inquiry can be ordered but not on the basis of the  

general information, assumption or presumption.  Apart from  

this,  after  disposal  of  the  writ  petition  as  early  as  on  

07.02.2008,  how  the  learned  single  Judge  assumed  

jurisdiction and issued several directions in the matter.   

11) In the light of the above discussion, we are satisfied that  

the direction relating to inquiry by the Vigilance Department  

and subsequent orders and directions by the learned single  

Judge cannot be sustained.  While confirming the order of the  

learned  single  Judge  relating  to  the  relief  granted  to  the  

respondent, all other directions relating to the Board and its  

officials are set aside.  However, it is made clear that if there is  

any specific  complaint with facts and figures against any of  

the officer of the Board, it is for the person concerned to move  

the appropriate prosecuting agency and if any such complaint  

is made, the agency is free to proceed in accordance with law.

12

12)  The civil appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned above.  

There shall be no order as to costs.

...…………………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)  

...…………………………………J.           (H.L. GOKHALE)  

NEW DELHI; JULY 28, 2011.      

13