Facts: BIADA allotted a plot to M/s. Scope for constructing a multiplex cum shopping mall. Subsequently, the State decided to reserve the land for the future development of IIT Patna and directed BIADA to cancel the allotment. BIADA issued a show cause notice and later cancelled the allotment, refunding the cost of the land with 5% interest. M/s. Scope challenged the cancellation.
Procedural Posture: M/s. Scope filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. A Division Bench reversed the Single Judge's order in an intra-court appeal. BIADA and the State of Bihar appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave.
Issue: Was the Division Bench of the High Court correct in interfering with the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition, considering the larger public interest involved in reserving the land for an educational institution (IIT Patna)? Did BIADA have the authority to cancel the allotment?
Holding: No, the Division Bench was not correct in interfering with the Single Judge's order. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order and restored the Single Judge's decision, upholding the cancellation of the allotment.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court held that the Single Judge's decision was valid, considering the larger public interest in establishing and expanding IIT Patna. The Court emphasized that judicial discipline requires deference to the discretion exercised by the court of first instance, especially when relevant considerations are taken into account. The Court also noted that the cancellation was bona fide and in furtherance of a larger public purpose, and BIADA had even offered an alternate plot to M/s. Scope. The Court further observed that individual interests must yield to the larger public good when the two conflict. The Court also directed that M/s Scope be refunded the original amount with 7% interest per annum.