Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

IA     NO.     10      OF     2012   

IN

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     10535     OF     2011   

Chairman & CEO, NOIDA & Anr. … Appellants

Versus

Mange Ram Sharma (D) Thr. LRs & Anr. …  Respondents

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

Dr. G.P. Pathak, C/o D-156, Sector 27, NOIDA – 201301 … Applicant

O     R     D     E     R   

1. By this order, we will dispose of the above Interlocutory  

Application filed on behalf of Dr. G.P. Pathak.  The prayer in this  

application is that this Court should modify para 4 of the  

directions contained in the order dated 30th July, 2012.  While  

making the above prayer, it is submitted that the New Okhla

Page 2

Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) has published a policy  

in furtherance to order of this Court and in clause 3 made a  

criteria which renders the applicant ineligible for obtaining a  

second plot under the same scheme.  The contention is that  

under the general schemes floated by the NOIDA, a person is  

entitled to get two plots and can even take two adjacent plots.  

Such allotment is required to be made by the authority and there  

is no restriction.  However, the scheme framed under the orders  

of the Court is placing the applicant at a disadvantageous  

position.  Para 4 of the directions contained in order dated 30th  

July, 2012 reads as under :

“4. The persons who have been allotted  lands by the NOIDA previously under any  Scheme, would not be eligible to the benefit  of the Special Scheme floated by the NOIDA  in furtherance of the order of this Court.”

Clause 3 of the ‘Special Scheme’ reads as under :

“3. The tenderer can Bid for a maximum of  2 (two) plots out of all plots offered in above  Scheme.  However, in that case net worth of  the tenderer should exceed aggregate net  worth required for both the plots applied for  by the tenderer taken together.  In case the  two adjoining plots are allotted to any  successful bidder, amalgamation of the said  two plots shall be permissible.”

2

Page 3

2. There is no dispute to the fact that the applicant was  

running a clinic in the residential area and has to close the same  

activity in furtherance to the orders of this Court.  He would be  

entitled to apply under the ‘Special Scheme’  formulated by the  

NOIDA under the order of the Court.  The question is as to  

whether under the ‘Special Scheme’, the applicant can claim two  

plots?  We have no hesitation in answering the said question in  

the negative.  This is a ‘Special Scheme’ floated by NOIDA as per  

the directions of this Court.   It is not a ‘General Scheme’ floated  

by NOIDA of its own.   The terms and conditions applicable under  

‘General Scheme’  floated by NOIDA will have such eligibility  

criteria and terms and conditions that NOIDA in its wisdom finds  

suitable and in consonance with its policy.   Such ‘General  

Scheme’ may permit grant of double benefit i.e. the party may be  

a successful bidder even in two plots.   To the contrary under the  

‘Special Scheme’  no person can be permitted to derive double  

benefit even if a person was running two clinics or two small  

nursing homes in the hospital area.  He can easily club both  

such clinics or nursing homes and build a common hospital just  

by raising additional construction as may be permissible.   It is  

3

Page 4

not disputed before us that the applicant has already got a plot  

for establishing a nursing home and in fact he has already built a  

nursing home there.   We see no reason why he should get  

double benefit under the court directed ‘Special Scheme’.    We do  

not see any necessity to alter or modify para 4 of the directions  

contained in the order dated 30th July, 2012.  Consequentially,  

there is also no requirement for modification of clause 3 of the  

‘Special Scheme’  floated by the NOIDA which debars a person  

who has already been given a plot.  We do not think that there  

was any occasion for the NOIDA even to introduce clause 3.  In  

fact, we direct its deletion.  Nobody would get two plots under  

this ‘Special Scheme’.  

3. We make it clear that the net worth of a tenderer would be of  

no consideration for giving such applicant two plots as the plots  

are being allotted in furtherance of the orders of the Court and,  

thus, could not be used as an instrument for providing state  

largesse in a manner not contemplated in terms of the judgment.  

4. We also make it clear that if, for any reason, the plots  

declared by NOIDA for construction of nursing homes are not sold  

under this ‘Special Scheme’, the NOIDA would be free to  

4

Page 5

formulate its general policy for allotment of such plots for nursing  

homes and the present applicant can apply under that scheme as  

per the terms and conditions of that policy, if such policy does  

not put any embargo or restriction upon grant of another plot.

5. In view of the above discussion, we dispose of this  

application with the following order :

(a) We decline to modify para 4 of the directions contained in  

the order of this Court dated 30th July, 2012.  

(b) We are of the considered view that turnover of a company  

has no connection with the number of plots that could be  

allotted to an applicant under the scheme formulated in  

furtherance to the said order of the Court.  Suffice it to note  

that two plots cannot be allotted under this Scheme.  Thus,  

we quash clause 3 of the brochure.  The same shall stand  

deleted with retrospective effect.

(c) Any plots which remain unallotted under the ‘Special  

Scheme’  relating to nursing homes, the NOIDA will be at  

liberty to formulate a ‘General Scheme’ for auctioning such  

plots in terms of its policy and the applicant, if eligible in  

5

Page 6

terms of that policy, can participate in the auction for  

buying the plot.

6. The Interlocutory Application is accordingly dismissed.  

There shall be no order as to costs.

………............................J.         [ Swatanter Kumar ]

  ……...............................J.                 [ Ranjana Prakash Desai ]

New Delhi September 13, 2012  

6